User talk:Matt Lewis

Matt Lewis (moved from British Isles page)

(I've moved this from BI talk:) --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you please stop behaving like a paranoiac, accusing people of racism, abusing numerous posters, alleging dishonesty, and generally being entirely irrational, unreasonable and entrenched when people refuse to accept your own particular culturally-determined view about the name "British Isles"? As one of your victims above said, if you cannot accept that all wikipedia edits are liable to be edited, and that yours in particular are especially liable, then perhaps you should be involved in work where you can advance your national views without criticism. Wikipedia is not that place. Trust me, any satisfaction you find on wikipedia will be ephemeral if you have achieved little in the real world on your own merits. That is undoubtedly your real problem, and your disproportionate anger here reflects that real-world situation. This is the wrong place. Please be reasonable. Thank you. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no "victims" - be careful there. Who are you? Are you this User:Gold heart? The above is just a measured personal attack, without making any point at all. I have revised my edits countless times to fit in with people. I do nothing but compromise.

"Trust me, any satisfaction you find on wikipedia will be ephemeral if you have achieved little in the real world on your own merits. That is undoubtedly your real problem, and your disproportionate anger here reflects that real-world situation." - you have no idea what I do or have done in the real world. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Happry Birthday

Happy Birthday, Matt. 1970 was a good year, cheers. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was yesterday actually. I noticed in a comment you made recently that you are (or were) the same age: you must have yours to come. I'm embarrassed to say that I spent a lot of the day (earlier on anyway) on Wikpiedia, even though it was a free day on a Saturday (and most of it was trying to remove a sock) - but then, what is 38? It's just another number isn't it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was born in 1971 & yep it's just a number. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

86.xxx.xxx

He/she keeps bringing up how the British bullied the Irish for centuries. I'm beginning to think the IP is possibley the oldest person on Earth (perhaps 1,000 yrs old), going by how he/she complains about his/her past treatment. Also, I've given up on trying to get him/her to register in (perhaps he/she is too brittle, to do so). GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP is quite colorful though; he/she must be a speech writer. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing is that I keep seeing one narrow type of 'Irish' person in here - when I go outside it's completely different. I have to remind myself of that sometimes when I'm too long in this place. There are a lot of Irish/Welsh where I'm from (and English/Irish who've moved here too, and some older Irish Irish who settled years back). The Irish are everywhere, esp in Britain. You wouldn't think it at all reading all this, would you? I suppose the young ones are less inclined to travel now Ireland is doing so well - it's such a shame to see all the anger though. I'm absolutely certain it's not refective. I went out with a girl from Dublin years ago, and I didn;t see any of it at all. Why would it intensify now?

I just think Wikipedia is geared up to empower the most intent goups of people. It's why people go on about 'cabals' etc. The whole polling/warring/locking/polling/warring/locking system entirely suits them. The lock is always on their preceding edit. When they have IP and sock support they are simply more powerful than Wikipedia Policy, and certainly get the better of the graft from the likes me, however policy-intent I try and make things. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wish the IP would register in; he likely won't out of spite, though. It wouldn't surprise me if he/she were actually a banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have long advocated (as the archives will attest) that IPs should be banned from Wiki. But nobody listens to me. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Having said that I disagree with everything else Matt has said, more or less. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm about 75% there with the total ban. What freaks me about this one is that he started as 86.42.119.12 an hour and a minute before I openly suspected Pureditor on the 26th August. Are these clocks all in line? If there was an explainable hour difference it would be even freakier. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"You know 86.42.119.12 removed you comment, don't you?": Yes, I had a big round with him/her because he/she randomly picked the page of someone named Sean (Sean Lennon) to POV-push his/her argument that the name should be spelled and pronounced differently than the way a person's parents spelled and pronounced it. He/she is shaping up to be a strong POV-pusher. Sometimes those cases are hard to argue, but if he/she continues I may make a report at WP:ANI. Like you, I don't have a lot of time, but I will only tolerate so much. I don't know enough about the British Isles issue to get in the middle of it, but I do know that parents can spell and pronounce their children's names any way they please. Ward3001 (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reported him to an admin as he his partying with the British Isles talk page in the middle of a proposal. He's simply a troll taking the piss, but on BI you can get away with it. The admin, User:Rockpocket is currently on BI talk. You may want to add to my comment in Rockpocket's talk. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(To GoodDay) "how the British bullied the Irish for centuries" - but they bullied them forsooth. And it is not the conclusion of your lead, as you had presumed; this massacre can cause but consternation in the reader, but is crucial for the understanding of the British deeds in Éire, and furthermore one of the foremost encyclopaedias - this one, clearly states: (about 15-16 centuries) "The economical development of the independent part of Éire was being hampered by the wars of conquest of the English colonisers. The agriculture suffered a great damage, the predominant part of the economy became the stock-breeding, which incited to a semi-nomadic way of life. (...now about Henry VIII:) The English absolutism leaned towards forcible abolition of the clan system, expropriation of the Irish soil (under pretence of the propagation of the English Reformation.)" the Cromwell period is described as "land robbing conducive to the Restauration of the Stuarts" (source), and so forth, further there is an even more circumstancial description. I know that it is inconvenient for the British stance, but it was committed. The encyclopaedia (greatest in Eastern Europe ever created) is now available online, but few of the Occidental people can take advantage thereof because of the language, hopefully someone will translate it in English...

If you unprotect the Irish history article, I can quote it, would you? Why is Irish history protected?! Bogorm (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just being silly with IP 86, Matt. Sorry if I might've damaged your case against him, I'll cease communication with him. GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It was just a frustrating day, and I got annoyed when he removed my Warning headings. I'm hoping the guys fancy wording will lead me somewhere - who knows. Maybe it's that Goldheart? I certainly have no respect for someone who is clearly in a position to sign up, but won't. His trolling comments aside, he can expect to be suspected. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes my not taking it seriously approach, hurts rather the helps situations; cheers. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To Bogorm: I wasn't picking on Britain; merely describing how the IP feels about British/Irish history. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I understand your frustration here, but you can't really complain about personal attacks if you respond in like. Calling him a "chump" is not cool. He is rehashing the same arguments we have heard before. They were not convincing then, and they are not convincing now. You did a good job pointing out his argument is based on selective Googling; just leave it there, rather than trading personal jabs. You both need to keep it focused on the article. Rockpocket 17:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, ok - I should have resisted the "chump". What is so difficult though, is that I've found all my arguments and proposals scrolled out of view (and soon into the archives) since I started making them at British isles. Sections like this IP's are partly made just to do that. What happens if I stop addressing them is that somebody genuinely opens a section saying "Why is X y???" based on the misinformation from people like this IP. Literally only a few days earlier (or even less) I may have fully argued and explained the questions posed (they don't have to agree - but should be able to follow the debate). It's been an impossible battle of keeping things on track and endlessly repetiting arguments against people who only have to 'copy and paste' the words "many many" and "British POV" etc. If he doesn't (cannot?) get an account then what can he expect? If he had an account he would have to behave less cockily (to put it mildly) too, which I see as a failing of Wikipedia in general to treat IPs and account holders equally. Either they are treated equally or the situation surrounding their use has to change, IMO.

I am doing constructive things on the issue too, I've just been waylaid with a sock case.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I do understand, and I too get tired of the same old arguments being trotted out. Perhaps the best thing to do in response is direct the IP (and anyone else reading) to the previous discussion on the same issue with a link. A simple one line answer will suffice. If you feel the point of these "proposals" are to sidetrack work on improving the text of the article, then move the section that is being sidetracked to the bottom and continue it there. Getting involved in rehashing old arguments only serves towards further distraction.

I, personally, happen to agree with you about registering an account. I believe that if you are going to get involved in ongoing talk-page discussions, you should register an account, otherwise we have no way of knowing that we are speaking to the same person. That said, our policies currently demand that we do not discriminate against people who choose not to register and therefore we should do our best respect that. We have invited him to register an account. If he choses not to, 86.xx will find out soon enough that, when push eventually comes to shove, IPs usually come off worse. Rockpocket 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: the case

Hello there! I have been reading the case as its grown and I'm convinced. However, I've asked another neutral admin to take a look too. I will keep you in the loop as to what is said. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  16:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Zapped. He'll be back. Let me know when. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  19:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He'll be back for sure, but it can't get any easier for him each time, and I doubt he's looking forward to it. I'll use the above as a template if I ever have to do a difficult (ie non-checkuser) one again - presenting it without it looking like a convoluted muddle was probably the hardest bit! I'll page-archive it for an easier link if your happy with it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

He's put up a defense (I've just dealt with some wrong-diff errors he highlighted), so I won't archive until it's over. I've countered the inevitable mistakes I made, so I can't see there being a problem now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Check user confirms our concerns and suspiscions. He was Wikipeire. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ovlem. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, although I've got slightly mixed feelings about it too, as you can imagine I'm sure(!). Hopefully the work I did at least helped take it to that stage - and he certainly changed IP's so there must be some powerful cross-checking tools upstairs. It's interesting that as Pureditor he didn't make another edit after being suspected, but as ThatsGrand he kept demanding a checkuser. I know sock users like this normally try and squeeze every drop, to waste others time if nothing else (and he had done this before of course), but I honestly think he thought he was clear this time. Hopefully he'll get tired of it all.

I found this website last night. It showed that his ThatsGrand IP (the one he originally called his username) and most of the suspicious 78.16's were from Dublin. I expect checkusers have a more powerful version, and can see logging in and out too. When I have time, I'm planning to use the site (or any better one I find) to template all the 'clear-cut' 78.16's (and 78.19's too) that are from Dublin as suspected socks - I find the archive trail in polls etc particularly annoying. I'll filter any 78's outside of Dublin from the Wikipeire list. It will certainly be good to have all the socks in one place, and with Wikipeire's name against them. He actually stated User:Melvo 14 months before he created Wikipeire, so there may still be one or two dormant, or seldom used accounts lying around of course. That website and the 'Kate's tool' variant are useful things to have. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When I was at University, the best (if only) piece of philosophy I was given was "the British can't remember, and the Irish can't forget". It's always stuck with me (I wrote a paper on ethnocentricism in Western Art - boring I know), and I think it sums up alot of the issues floating around. However, I won't forget Wikipeire any time soon, thats for sure!

I think you did a great job, especially as Wikiperie is a 1st rate troll (amongst other things), and is (semi-)sophisticated in his attempts to rewrite history and culture. He is a bully, time-waster and provokator, and I think you stayed as calm as any master could.

However, I too have mixed feelings. What I really didn't like was the calls (not just from Wikipeire) that this was an "anti-Irish" thing. That's basically saying me/you/whoever, are facists or racists. It's not good, and the polarisation of the editting community is almost back to its very worst (as I remember it a couple of years back), along national, ethnic and cultural lines. I'm concerned about that a great deal...

Thanks again for taking time out to wrap this up. I don't think I could've done it, and commend you highly for it. Let me know if you spot his new guise, which I think we both know will be around sometime soon. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Any result in this place is a bonus for me right now! I don't care much it takes to get one with this guy - hopefully he can now see the lengths I'm prepared to go to. Calling us both "anti-Irish" would have done him any favours if it got complicated of course, ie it wasn't clear enough for you to block. I very much doubt he believes it deep down either - he just wants to use Wikipedia to change the world (ie the 'world' as he wants it to be seen re Ireland). It's such a narrow focus, so he'll be pretty easy to spot from now on. If he has any sense he'll go to a good Dublin pub/cafe of a night instead. It's not as if he's been a great contributor - he's a single-issue comment-maker and, in general, a reverter, so he could quickly lose the buzz if focused on something else. But like you say, I'm not holding my breath.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wkipéire's latest (12th September 2008)

See here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Wikipéire_(4th)#User:Wikip.C3.A9ire_.284th.29. He's made the one account and used a few IPs. A pretty clear cut case, though. I put this on Alison's talk page and I'm serious about it too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just blocked a bunch of accounts - Alison ^❤ 07:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking ThatsGrand - I knew it wasn't your job, but it seems checkusers and SSPs are understaffed at the moment. The rangeblock was a good move. I've Googled the Dublin-range 76.16.xx.xx's, and I don't think I've seen one that isn't him: he's used it countless times. 76.19s seem more widely used, although I havent checked them as much against Dublin (which the last 4 numbers denote I would guess). I use a pretty basic location website to check. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Counts

Matt, As you are a bit of an expert you might be able to help! Reading your case against ThatsGrand you used soem information supplied by Interiot. This is very interesting to see where one has been editing etc but for some reason it doesn't work with my name!! I can put other users in and get the stats but when I put in "Sarah777" it goes off for a while and then returns....nothing! As I say, it used to work. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not working for my own name at the moment - it could be bandwidth as it's off wiki. It doesn't do fancy characters (like Wikipeire unfortunately) but it should do numbers. Mines just completed.. but it took a minute. Yours seems to be stuck. There are others on the Kates Tool page, but they are not as good. Yours has just done... (a couple of minutes) probably because you have 27138 edits. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You were very busy in sept 2007! --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. In July this year you were the 6ooth most productive English Wikipedian by number of edits (slightly behind GoodDay at #598 and miles ahead of me at #1261, but nowhere near BrownHairedGirl at #5!). Of course, it all depends whether you think size does or does not matter, as to what worth these data have. Rockpocket 17:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You are right about quality over quantity - someone could deliver an excellent article in just one edit. I use to say I was 50/50 comments/edits - it looks like I'm slacking on mainpage edits these days. That hanging around locked articles for you!--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm at #598? I didn't know that (but now I do). GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't register (in the top 3999 anyway!) - but I am on this sub page - 2236 based on recent edits! You are merely 759 on that - you are clearly below par at the moment. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I still can't get it to work! My bandwidth must be too skinny :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you just left it searching? It did take a couple of minutes for you account (I've got a decent-ish broadband). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Works fine for me too, but it takes about 3 mins to run... --HighKing (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

re Ireland disambiguation task force

Matt, that looks like a really good, well balanced start. As you say, although the articles have been fairly stable name-wise for several years, the discussions keep coming up and distracting everyone from the task in hand - I think this is a great idea. Well done. Waggers (talk) 14:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm trying to get that table finished between the usually daily distractions. It'll be up some time today, but I have to get off again now. The table is important as it shows what a confused state many of the sub articles are actually in - it will be useful in itself.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I've spotted a small number of clarifications and corrections that I would recommend. I'll put them in my sandbox for you to take a look at rather than change the article directly which would only lead to confusion. I'll not be offended if you chose to ignore any suggestions. --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I put them in (some with slight changes). I've haven't been fully following all the proof given for Ireland being "official" - so I'm taking your word for it. It seems reasonable on what I remember reading, but obviously we can't have any of the main text contested. We do at different points say they both are 'official' however (whatever it actually means), so I assume this is all ok here.

Sorry about the delay on the tables - I'll try an get them up later today. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDTF up and running

Sorry for the wait folks - I've been annoyingly busy lately, and whenever I've managed to get on, I've felt it was best to deal with the latest socking by Wikipéire first: I think it was important that Wikipéire gets the message that he can no longer hide, and there is a proper 'case' on him now. Ironically, he would probably give the proposal that kick-starts WP:IDTF his vote, but in constantly socking and upsetting people, all he has ever done is make change in any capacity less likely to happen. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

38 year old carer

Please would you email me. It is very easy to find out how to do that. I have Parkinson's disease. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm having to wait for a validation email. I've not emailed out before - normally it's not something I would do, but I gather you can't see my email to email me. I would guess when I changed it once I didn't complete it properly. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Switching email off

The above email was nothing to do with Parkinson's disease at all - Kittybrewster was just trying to get another editor into trouble. What a dodgy way to get me to switch on my email. And he has since emailed me, now he knows it, just to take the mick out of my spelling. I've had no previous dealings with him at all. I'll report any more crappy emails from anybody who gets it right here, as personally I've got nothing to hide.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Task force" page nominated for deletion

Which 'Taskforce'? GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The one below (he made two headings). --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force

Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Ireland disambiguation task force during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

GD returns

It'll take me awhile to catch up (on the new Taskforce). I see Wikipiere was up to his old tricks again (as UncleFisty). I shall try to catch on to things tommorrow. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The was the straw that broke the camel's back - he's been at all weekend, and since too, but has a rangeblock on his IP now (or something like that..). I reported him mercilessly all weekend, while trying to complete WP:IDTF, and I was busy 'outside' too. Consequently the Idisam taskforce was up while uncompleted for a couple of days before I advertised it, and that's now a bit of a burden. At least Wikipeire is being dealt with though - on top of everything, I couldn't deal with him playing around on the articles I was trying to record in a cross-usage table (you'll see it in the taskforce).

People are complaining there was no poll on the taskforce beforehand - which makes me almost certain it would be a 50/50 'against' vote for having one. One person's reaction was to sign against the proposal it kicked off with, then immediately put it up for deletion! (talk about hedging your bets). Hope your sister had a good wedding by the way.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The wedding was great, thanks. I'm gonna take a peek at the Irish Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to strike your 'keep'? (keep is to keep the taskforce). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Crispy says my Keep was contradicting myself. However, notice I didn't replace it with Delete. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind! If we don't get a few more "Keeps" this will be deleted! The go by headcounts - I've seen it happen. A strike looks like a delete vote. As for Crispness, he is doing he can to get the taskforce deleted. Judging by his sandbox (currenly all about me) and what he's now doing to his WP:BRIT (a third AfD) he simply out to disprupt things, if you ask me. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed you never actually changed your mind anyway! Both of Crispness diffs were of you commenting on WP:BRIT! He's disrupting GoodDay, plain and simple. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I told him at his talkpage. Others will have to decide if my Keep is valid or not. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Re: your post on my talk page: "Plenty of debate and polling has gone on at IMOS (recently too), ROI, NI and WPI. It never ends (or stays in the same place), and at 50/50 the 'status quo' always remains." It doesn't end because debate and polling won't get you anywhere. You should move the one main issue to a general discussion area, maybe Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), and set up a formal discussion that will be closed by a neutral admin with top and bottom headers. You then should seek more input from others, such as posing at Wikipedia:Community portal notices and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues. Set a time limit for the discussion, such as seven days. After seven days, post a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard to have an admin close the discussion with top and bottom headers. You'll then have a consensus resolution to add to the MOS, one that can be acted on to go forward and cited to when someone does not act consistent with it. -- Suntag ☼ 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - that sounds like excellent advice. I started this taskforce ultimately because a taskforce I created about a month ago, on using the term "British Isles" (WP:BITASK) (which was polled beforehand - and was a big achievement to get going in itself) was deadlocked over the 'Ireland naming issue', so I had to get involved in it. All I've found is negativity and desperation! I had read about using Village pump when I looked ahead at eventually making BITASK a guideline - I didn't look to deeply I must admit, but it is a bridge that I am fully prepared to cross when I need to. I figured that taskforces must come first, so the people involved can try and agree beforehand. In this case, however, that may actually never happen, I do have to concede. I'll consider your advice, and if this taskforce is deleted, I will certainly go with it, as the endless talk page arguing is simply distracting from the Irish articles, many of which are simply a naming (and content) mess. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Make sure that the consensus you seek is on a simple concept such as "As part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), article names on topics related to the country Ireland should only use 'Ireland' in their title, not 'Republic of Ireland'." Before posting the consensus seeking discussion, consult with User:Tony1, User:Noetica, and/or User:SMcCandlish about what you are trying to do and how to word the consensus seeking discussion request. Tag my talk page once you get the consensus seeking discussion set up. -- Suntag ☼ 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Brit nom

Matt, what I said was "As the original creator, I see no benefit to keeping the shortcut if it is going to offend even a very small number of objecting editors." That is quite different from your assertion that I want it deleted. I think it would be better for the nom if you changed it rather than me. Thanks. Crispness (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

info added to main text at WP:IDTF

I corrected the opening text because it was deeply flawed. The opening statement should reflect reality, not some imagined world. --Red King (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For exampple, someone who writes that "the Republic was formed in 1921" clearly has not got the most basic facts right and should go away and not come back until he/she has read all the History of Irland series. --Red King (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please - I've received a huge amount of flack today, but have stood my ground because I am someone with the resolve to get through this - and it is surely for the benefit of Wikiepedia. What do you think is imagined and flawed? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The time around 1921 is ambiguous, we all know that. No one has argued up to now - why not just change it. What date is better? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not remotely ambiguous. Ireland (state) ceased to be a constitutional monarchy in 1948 by declaring itself to be a republic. But that did not change its constitutional name, which remained "Ireland" (when writing in English). The treaty of secession was signed in 1921 and ratified in 1922. This is primary school stuff. --Red King (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am here (as I keep saying) as I can't move elsewhere over this bloody naming issue. I'm not trespassing - I'm trying make space to move! We must resolve these problems. I put "1921" and you are the first person to identify this mistake - thank you, but why sould I get flamed when no-one else has corrected it over the weekend? It simply needed correcting, that is all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't need your trust, just acceptance of the facts as seen outside this hothouse. For the relevant text, see the first piece of text after the bullet point list in Belfast Agreement article. --Red King (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

appeal

I'm asking you as politely as I possibly can to please be less aggressive with me: I am more than capable of working with someone! If you thing I am propagating a 'British POV' just see the personalised flack I've taken today in the Deletion page and surrounding it from people on the 'other side' of this matter to you! Being 'in the middle' I get put in the unenviable position of taking crap from both sides. I am doing my best, please appreciate it a bit, and perhaps recognise what I have thus far actually managed to do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you're making an effort to solve the Ireland names dispute, is to be commended. You're doing great Matt. PS- Whoever said you had a short fuse? can't say so now (holy smokers, I've had thrown in the towel yesterday after so much verbal abuse). GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force. 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. ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Crispness inserted WP:BRIT back into the taskforce to prejudice the 3rd 'Request for Detetion' he has cynically started. There is (currently) a 4:1 poll against using the obviously misleading and unnecessary "BRIT" shortcut at BITASK talk, which Crispness is simply ignoring. I had every right to revert him, but I will not be lead into getting myself into trouble - that is for sure. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why you reverted 3 times is irrelevant. You know full well what an edit war is and you are a party to it no matter who starts it, what it is about, or whether it is true or not. You ARE already in trouble for 3RRR but perhaps you will be lucky this time if no admin blocks you. ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys can't even come to compromise over the shortcut, then what hope?? Ok, Matt - formal final warning. You're actually at your revert limit right now. Next one within 24 hours and you're blocked - Alison ^❤ 04:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just be careful you don't "do a Fozzie" and indefinitely block Matt and then sit back and claim "the community" must agree whether to unblock or ban for life. The more I think about that......Grrrrr Sarah777 (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought this dispute was settled, with the consensus Matt mentioned? GoodDay (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To avoid this going back and forth, any settlement should be closed by an uninvolved admin adn use something like Template:Discussion top and Template:Discussion bottom. That gives you something to hang your hat on. -- Suntag ☼ 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL

More heat doesn't make your arguments any more cogent, and name-calling doesn't make you more credible. Please re-read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before returning to an already-heated RfD -- and, no, I won't charge for this edit, either. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A) What are you refering to? (I haven't been on all day!)

B) Who are you, anyway? (apart from an IP address I haven't noticed before). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland disambiguation

Hi, Matt.
I'm pretty sure you're thinking "oh, here's this guy making trouble again" ;-), but actually, the more I read of the current discussion on disambiguation of "Ireland" the more I'm convinced not only that you are right and the question needs to be resolved once and for all, but that you and I could work together and come up with something that will finally bridge the divide. I can see now how my comments yesterday probably seemed provocative, but actually it wasn't meant that way; it was only me trying to get my head around some things, and see if I could see why the discussion always seems to get stuck. Anyway, I have a sort of a proposal, but I don't want to put it on the Task Force page at the moment because it's a different kind of proposal to the one that's currently under discussion. I'd rather run it by you and see what you think. Basically, I'm thinking of trying to get together people of as many different POVs as possible (and part of the problem is that there are not just two, but many POVs), and let each put forward a "statement of position". Each statement would stand on its own, without any comment from anybody else, so that each and every POV, whether you or I thought it was insightful or peurile, would be there for all to see. At the moment, if you look at any small snatch of discussion, you'll see it's a straight copy of a discussion from a month ago, and one from six months ago, and one from six years ago. If there was a section where each view was stated concisely, there would be no need for the "here we go again!" or "as I've said time and time again..." type of response that usually signals that discussion is grinding to a halt. The next thing is, when the position statements are posted, we could see all the solutions that are not going to be acceptable. So, for instance, we would be able to say "A will never accept Ireland for the 26-county state because x, B finds ROI objectionable because y". My feeling is that once we know for sure what proposals are not going to work (whether we think the objectors are being reasonable or not) we might be able to come up with something completely new, that doesn't fall into any of those traps. Am I making sense at all? I'd like to think we'd be able to put our heads together and really break the mould. Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me with this. Each party making a statement would be interesting. You are bang on when you say there are multiple points of view. I think that sometimes the 'easier targets' from one side of the general debate, take the 'blame' for the positions of others (positions they may not actually share at all). I'm not entirely sure that openness is what everybody in the picture actually wants to see, but I'm glad you have suggested it.

My principle drive for starting the taskforce (rather than just another poll) was, believe it or not, to show the disruption the many interpretations of the current method has caused so many Ireland related articles (ie the usage tables) - in doing that I felt I had to bring to task someone I knew would vote my way in the Ireland/Ireland (island) poll (which I've had in mind for a couple of weeks at least) - namely the constant sock-maker Wikipeire.

I wish now, with hindsight, that I kept back that new proposal for a little while, and not started the taskforce with it - a silly mistake by me there. You can image how aggrieved I am to be accused of forum shopping! A home for things like usage tables, and a place to not repeat ourselves (which we so often so, as you say) are the main reasons for WP:IDTF. What I haven't shown is the amount of biography article's that link (un-piped) to "Ireland" while innocently meaning the state - impossible as an inclusive table, but another important point to focus on.

I've noticed that some admins have actually deemed to vote on the "Ireland (state)" poll of a month or so ago (they don't seem to like it) - that is another reason why I am keen on the plain Ireland one. Also, all those uses of "Ireland" meaning the the state will immediately work as intended.

What was different about my new proposal was that it actually centred on "Ireland (island)" (or "island of Ireland") for an non-political island article. I offered a choice of keeping ROI next to it - but the one thing I personally insist on is a non-political island article. It will immediately create a whole bunch of new NI ones! - Something for those people genuinely into NI to get their teeth into I'm sure. I naively thought that some would go for the 'ROI/Ireland (island)' version of the solution - but none have done, which has made me a bit cynical of motives to say the least. Hence why I keep saying that I think that some people are happy with an ambiguous and confusing political Ireland as island article.

What do you have in mind to move forward? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What I have in mind is something like this. I'm not suggesting you read all of it. In brief, there were two or three main contenders for article name: "Irish Potato Famine", "Great Irish Famine" and "The Great Hunger". Advocates of each had a plethora of reasons why their name was the only or the obvious name. I basically turned the question around and asked which of the names people hated the most. Guess what? The three most popular choices were also the three most unpopular. Once they were eliminated, we looked at some of the more unfashionable alternatives, and Great Famine (Ireland), which nobody had ever commented on favourably before, quickly emerged as a name that everybody was happy with (everybody except for one head-the-ball who can remain nameless).

What I was thinking was that the Task Force, or whatever it might be renamed as, could begin with these "position papers", so you know starting off who your constituents are, possibly followed by a "favourite hate" poll where the options with the least chance of success can be identified. Then, with enough participants, there is a good chance of somebody being able to think outside the box, and come up with a new, not necessarily glamourous, proposition that people on all sides can subscribe to. By definition, this would be something that I cannot imagine at the moment.

My own POV is that "the island of Ireland" (which I far prefer as a term than "Ireland (island)") should be the major article, since history, geography, language and everything else is common to the whole island, and that the state of which I am a citizen, which after all is just over sixty years old, should have an article - a fork even - dealing with politics, institutions, relations with its neighbours, and very little else. But that's a position I'll put on the project page when the time is ripe.

I'm off to bed now, but I'll be happy to continue this talk tomorrow evening. Scolaire (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mr Scholar, it's 90 years old, not 60. (I must point out that I'm not the "head-the-ball" referenced above). I'd go with the island as the primary article with "Ireland may also refer to the country Ireland (country). Some folk may quibble with 'country' rather than 'state'; but if Northern Ireland is a "country", as it bizarrely is according to Wiki, then the South if definitely a country - with knobs on. The fact that the current "community" "consensus" has NI as a "country" (but RoI isn't) says it all. Pure, unadulterated British POV uber alles. Sustained in part by certain numskulls from the South who are either closet Unionists or are dimmer and denser than a distant black hole. Generically speaking. IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Very quick response: You're right, my arithmatic let me down. The state whose name is Ireland is 71, not 61 years old. It is the product of the 1937 Constitution, and was preceded by the Irish Free State, which has its own article. And you were very far from my mind when I made the head-the-ball remark. I think you probably know who I'm talking about ;-) Scolaire (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you leave your "British uber alles" bollocks off my talk page please? I'm counting the days til I'm out of this horrible place. At least you are slowly starting to see that the Irish editors themselves are responsible for the naming mess - and not the British who you keep blaming so vehemently. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Matt, as I regard Northern Irish editors as British (unless they disown that label) I can't agree with you in this case. And really, no wonder folk complain about you - such language!! Appalling. You are worse than Ww2, frankly. At least he only makes allegations of bad faith, lying, scheming etc. I must apologise though Matt, I didn't realise it was your page. With all the forum shopping going on I tend to feel that wherever I lay my hat, that's my home. Remember Matt, stay cool. They are trying to rile you. Don't take the bait. You are playing a blinder so far and have the POV warriors scattered and demoralised. Don't, for God's sake, lose heart at this stage when you are on the verage of acheiving something nobody else copuld in six years. You must see it through. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. My reply to (Scolaire) is: how about keeping the taskforce, but closing all polling on a date like Nov 1st (as somebody suggested) maybe sooner, or even later. I won't be here to see it if it's past September (I'm sick to death of IPs and the fact that admins lie through their teeth surrouding them - ie they know who some of them are, but pretend AGF, and warn others around them - it's a totally demeaning situation), but if the taskforce remains I'll be happy enough.

Although I am strongly against a political island article (as it gets constantly abused, and is actually anti-Norhtern Ireland in my opinion), I agree with you about the slight superiority of "Island of Ireland" as a title (which is easliy linked to as "island of Ireland" or "Island of Island", or redirected to as "Ireland (island)") - but somebody has said it is stylistically against guidelines. I don't think it is, but I hate arguing things like that. If "Island of Ireland" had support I'd give it my vote - but only if it is non political.

There are other options I would go for too: (note that the island article is always non-political)

1) "Ireland" disam page: offering -

A) "Republic of Ireland"

B) "Ireland (pre-1922)"

C) "Ireland (island)" ((or "island of Ireland")) - which also top-links to the others.

2) "Ireland" disam page: offering -

A) "Ireland (country)"

B) "Ireland (island)" ((or "island of Ireland")) - which also top-links to the others.

3) "Ireland" disam page: offering -

A) "Ireland"

B) "Ireland (island)" ((or "island of Ireland")) - which also top-links to the others.

4) "Ireland" redirecting to:

• "Republic of Ireland" which top-links to:

i) "Ireland (pre-1922)"

ii) "Ireland (island)" ((or "island of Ireland")) - which also top-links to the others.

5) "Ireland" redirecting to:

• "Ireland (island)" ((or "island of Ireland")) which top-links to:

i) "Republic of Ireland"

ii) "Ireland (pre-1922)"

6) "Ireland" redirecting to:

• "Ireland (pre-1922)" which top-links to:

i) "Republic of Ireland"

ii) "Ireland (island)" ((or "island of Ireland")) - which also top-links to the others.

Note that the island article is always non-political.

2 is favoured by a number of people (HighKing, GoodDay etc), but I would still go for the 3rd "Ireland/Ireland (island)" approach: I dropped the disam-page approach and went with a straight-linked version for my proposal in the taskforce. A disam page offers something subtly different though. I would accept 1, 2 or 3, as they all offer a geography only article for the island - the absence of which is the very crux fo the problem as far as I'm concerned. -Matt Lewis (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Very quick response: I said that I prefer the term "island of Ireland"; I suspect it wouldn't work as an article name. I'll come back to you on the rest this evening. Scolaire (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland disambiguation - Matt Proposals 17 Sept

I'd go with #3 above as my first choice and as the only correct choice. I'd compromise and go with with #2; but only with Ireland (country) rather than Ireland (state). Since the time a year ago when I supported "Ireland (state)", Northern Ireland has been elevated to a "country" by the British Wiki community over my objections; so obviously if the NI statelet is a "country" then the Republic must be. Alternatively we could have Ireland (state) and purge all references to NI being a "country". But that will be near impossible 'cos shorty will never surrender his platform shoes ;) Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you prefer the disam page approach to the similar proposal currenly on the taskforce page? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A disam page or a primary "Ireland" article with "Ireland also refers to......". So long as, if "the island" (my 2nd choice), is the primary article, then the line at the top says "Ireland also refers to [Ireland (country)|Ireland the country]. Does that answer your question? Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You sound like you are happy with the country article being called either "Ireland" or "Ireland (country)". It sounds like you don't mind either a straight-linked "Ireland" (as country) article (ie the taskforce proposal), or disam page version of it (ie option 3 above). Both versions have the country article as the main "Ireland" article (ie the country throughout its history up to today, and called "Ireland" or "Ireland (country)"), with a non-political top-linked 'island'. Your second choice is a non-political 'island' main article, with the country article (either "Ireland" or "Ireland (country)") top-linked from it. Presumably whether via a disam page, or a straight-link. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see with either "Ireland (state)" or "Ireland (country)" is that it is ambiguous: does it refer to the pre-1801 state or to the post-1922 state, or even to the 1919-1922 Irish Republic? If the pre- and post-1922 entities had contiguous borders, that ambiguity would be easily resolved, but the problem is that they don't :(

I suggest, though, that if this issue is ever going to be resolved (in the sense of reaching a stable and settled conclusion with widespread support), that can only be done by following a procedure often used in negotiation and starting by taking all options off the table (including the status quo), and discussing instead what principles editors want to apply here ... then listing all of them, then looking at what weight people want to apply to them. That's really important; we all bring many principles to this discussion, and if we can concentrate on exploring those principles, we will get a better understanding of why other editors reach conclusions opposite to ours .... but if we start by putting substantive proposals on the table, then we guarantee that the debate polarises into pro- and anti- camps.

I think that if we run through this process, it should be possible to arrive at a fairly concise and straightfowrard description of the problem which is acceptable to everyone. That may or may not lead to a situation where it is worth tabling proposals again, but it should at the very least take some of the acrimony out of the debates.

However, I think that the continued tabling of options is diverting everyone from a proper discussion of the principles at work; once a proposal is on the table, the priority becomes to support or defeat that proposal, rather than the essential work of understanding what others are trying to achieve. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of us all laying down what we want and don't want to see (as Scolaire suggests above) - we can then distil the problems together. But without these discussions, branstorming, commitment, and bold acts too, nothing gets anywhere! We could put the proposal in the taskforce on hold (via a discussion top/bottom), archive the intitial arguements perhaps, then each deliver a section by section succession of statements (where no-one is allowed to critisise another editor or party, and no-one is allowed to edit in another's section), --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, great to see that we are starting to agree on a some things!

A few suggestions:

1. I think it would be better to withdraw the proposal than to put it on hold. It can always be revived later if you still want to, but taking it off the table for now would be an important demonstration of the good faith you bring to this.
2. I think that the idea of sections needs to be approached with some caution, because the aim of the exercise should not (IMO) be to get people to argue for or against any particular article title, and it should be made clear that advocacy or criticism of particular names should be avoided (and in fact there should be a clear instruction that no article titles should even be mentioned).
3. You're quite right that no-one should be allowed to criticise another editor, but it is important that people say why they dislike an idea. So no "X talks rubbish", "Y has a political agenda", and best if there is no mention of names at all. But it is important that editors can say e.g. that "I think that supercallifragillisticality is irrelevant to this issue, because ...".
4. Comments which name another editor or fail to advance a reason will be deleted. This is not a discussion for support/oppose comments, it's an exercise in explaining why people want particular principles applied.
5. Once everyone has had their say, then an uninvolved person collects and collates all the statements of principle, and tries to summarise them in a table, working with everyone to try to ensure that their position is accurately summarised. This is the difficult but crucial bit; the whole thing only works if there is an agreement on a neutral summary of the issues.

HTH! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

PS I have just read Scolaire's suggestion, and while I think it's an advance on previous suggestions, I don't think it'll work. That's because it brings in article titles from the outset, which entrenches the polarisation; what I'm suggesting is the opposite, to specifically exclude the outcomes until everyone's objectives are clarified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Very quick response: my idea is effectively what you say, to let all parties clarify their position before any concrete proposals for names are offered. It "brings in article titles" only to the extent that individual statements will inevitably say "we must have this" or "that is unacceptable". The statement of personal POV was outside my proposal and in retrospect I'd have been better leaving it out. Scolaire (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Scolaire's idea needed discussion for sure - but it was on similar lines, and was an outcome of the taskforce that was nowhere near on the cards before it, which was the point I was making. I have to retire - it's way past my planned bedtime, but I will say that getting a neutral to do the dokey work on this issue is a petty tough thing to achieve. If you know of one..I'll look at your points tomorrow. On the first one though, I meant to do a compressed-box option thing but I forgot how to do it. I don't mind if it's a side archive called "postponed initial proposal" or something. It certainly needs to be recoverably if necessary - the message, of course, works both ways there. Don't forget the amount of people who want and need this taskforce - far more than those who don't IMO (hence the magnified worries about 'forum shopping' I think - with a proper 'status quo' no-one should be worried about a taskforce like this - and all the projects were addressed equally).--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, what on earth is a "proper" status quo? The status quo is the status quo, and I don't see how it can be either proper or improper. --BrownHairedGirl)

When people boast of this particular 'status quo' they imply it is a stable non-artificial one. The un-'proper' nature is in how it is referred to - ie over-confidently. It is not as stable as people suggest, because 1) its currently around a 50/50 for it, B) Thus, if we open the debate to more people it could be said that there would NOT be this particular 'status quo' at all!

As I said, if it was a 'proper status quo', opening a taskforce fairly should not be an issue - but the fear behind the cries of "Forum shopping!" suggested to me that some people know it could disintegrate within a wider debate. To properly boast of this 'status quo', as people have done, it would need to be more a lot less fragile. There is an artificial element about this one, in many ways I feel - but I don't think it would be productive to go keep going down that line. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to Matt, I think he only means he would prefer to see a status quo that was arrived at through consensus rather than through lack of consensus. And wouldn't we all, really? Scolaire (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly - it would be happier, more stable, less artificial etc it it was based on a recognised consensus the majority of a reasonably-sized community agree on. Someone told me recently that nothing is ever changed with endless little polls in small rooms - and he/she is right, as literally nothing changes. It just goes from 60 to 50 percent and no-doubt back again. The debate gets bitter, personal and highly repetitive. If there are inherent problems with the current status quo (as there clearly are) we need to broaden everything about the way it is dealt with. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Absolutely, things would be "cleaner" if the numbers favouring the status quo were greater than 60 or 70% (I'm not sure the gap is as close as 50/50, though). However, where are most people most likely to come across a debate on the namechange? On the page(s) in question, not on a poorly linked "WP:" page that only longtime editors have a chance of stumbling across. That'd be much more of an "artificial" consensus. If I were you, Matt, I'd not be assuming either that a wider audience would bring a change in consensus - the issue has been debated multiple times in the three years I've been here, and there's never, ever been a majority in favour of change. And looking back over the archives, its not always the same people in the polls, either. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We all have our opinions Bastun. As for "70%"! There must have been a very demoralising preceding debate for you to ever have chalked up as much as that in a particular poll. I've never seen it. Lets not forget where the opening proposal was standing before I postponed it? Not a final result by any means - but it showed a clear early lead for change didn't it? Hence your own immediate request for taskforce deletion.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between not wanting change and not wanting to change to a specific, named thing. I imagine that everybody that's got involved in the current discussion and in previous discussions would like to see naming conventions that don't result in interminable edit wars and energy-sapping debates. And I for one would far rather see it on a well-advertised "WP:" page, where it is properly contained, than sprawling across two or three article and project pages where it crowds out any discussion of anything else. Scolaire (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Matt) It'd be nice if you'd reply to what I actually wrote instead of what you assume I wrote. I didn't say there was a poll where > 70% were in favour of the status quo - I said it'd be nicer if there had been one like that! And please assume some good faith. I did not nominate the IDTF page for deletion because of the poll - I nominated it because it was out of process, a poll had only recently concluded, and it was WP:forumshopping, with seemingly a select few "in the know" in advance about its existence and the rest of us just lucky enough to stumble on it. Your advert on Wikiproject Ireland, for example, was on the talk page, not even on the main page, under the news section - where it should have been. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about the wikiproject mainpages, I didn't complete them - I'll do it now. Perhaps you could have helped? I have virtually no AGF left, so can can expect me to mix up the odd line. When you saw the taskforce you simply voted 'oppose' to the opening proposal (the 6th vote in), then took it to "Miscellany for deletion" staight afterwards, accusing me of gaming the system! Where was your AGF, and where was your discussion? You damn near brought it down too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

ID part 3

Anyway, Matt, I'd like to know what you think of my suggestion on the MfD page, that we retain the task force, but start again with a completely blank sheet, where we could set up something along the lines suggested by both myself and BrownHairedGirl. BTW, I agree with you that getting a neutral person to "moderate" is often difficult in practice. I think it might actually be preferable to have someone who has declared a POV in the past, but is obviously committed to searching for a resolution rather than a do-or-die holding to one position. I was actually going to suggest BHG herself, if she was willing, but I see Snowded has got in ahead of me on the MfD page. So, all in all, does it look like something you could go with? Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied to blanking the current taskforce on the MfD page: I don't see how you can start again - read through the dialogue I had with Red King (esp the diffs) - do you really want to deal with all that again from scratch? I fought for your POV there, and it wasn't easy. You will certainly appreciate what I've done if you try and do it all again from sctatch between you, believe me! It would be a mammoth task which could last week if not months if not years! (no-doubt what some poeple might want). I'm not prepared to completely lose the opening proposal either: too many chose to vote on it.

Re BHG - I've only experienced her over the last day or two, but I've seen an initial negativity regarding possible change from her which is a little too POV for me: we need someone more open to the posibility of change. Having said that, I have nothing against her otherwise - but like she says herself, a neutral is needed. I understand, though, that a declared POV is not necessarily a hindrance, but why not look for a neutral? I don't want BHG to summarise etc, anyway - she's very much into the issue and her own opinions. We need someone who won't feel the need to be personally involved. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please believe me when I say that I never meant to make little of the work you've done in getting the TF up. If it's kept - and all the signs are it will be - it has the potential to get to grips with this issue in a way that nobody has been able to before. The reason for my proposal to blank the page is simply that what BrownHairedGirl and I have separately suggested represents a radically new approach to the question. If some structure based on our two proposals is adopted the project page will look completely different to how it now looks. So it comes down to a straight choice: continue exactly as you were going or start from scratch. I can't see any way to have the two processes going on on the same page at the same time (I'm not referring to the non-forking proposal here, I'm talking about the intro etc.). I've read those diffs as you asked me to, and TBH I think it only reinforces what I'm saying. The "Current approach" section as it stands is the result of a stalemate between two opposing views, rather than an agreed statement of the facts arrived at by discussion on the talk page. Again, please don't think that "starting from scratch" in any way reduces the value of what has already been done. It's just a statement of intent to boldly go where no-one has gone before. And the virtue of deleting the text, rather than deleting the task force, is that if the new approach fails completely, the old page can be restored with a single mouse-click. Will you give it some consideration? Scolaire (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, four mouse-clicks and an edit summary, but you know what I mean ;-) Scolaire (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it needs to be one or the other? The taksforce is an open book at the moment - now the proposal is archived it is simply awaiting direction. How about I fully archive the proposal on a new page (although still under the same terms), and we start with a new section asking for people's views in individual sub-sections, giving the criteria for it etc. Although I'm happy to instigate the new section, I'll leave it to the neutral admin (a bit of a chore, but still..). This should really be discussed in taskforce anyway, so I'll add a comment on it when I create the page archive. The intro shows the state of play - we need that for any new people who might drop in to get a grasp of the subject. We can work to make at it as accurate as possible. Believe me, someone like Red King will soon fill the hole if it's taken away.

The most salient question to me is "Which is more important to you? 'Republic of Ireland' as a specific title, or an island article called "Ireland" that includes all of Ireland's history including NI?" This for me is where too-few people are being honest. I personally think, as I'm sure you know, that a strong and determined group of people are insistent on having both - however it upsets Wikipedia. My problem with letting people speak of what they want and don't want in self-contained sub-sections, is that it relies on them being honest and inclusive. Better for me would be a set of pertinent questions for people to answer, including:

Q) Do you insist that Wikipedia should have an article named "Ireland" that includes historical/political information of Northern Ireland?

Posing that would cut through a lot of crap.

By the way, what do you think of a disam page leading to a choice of 1) ROI 2) Ireland (pre-1922) 3) Ireland (island)? As a genuine compromise I can't see any better, endless you would accept Ireland (country) and Ireland (island) from a disam page? As you didn't accept my favoured "Ireland"/"Ireland (island)" proposal in the taskforce, I would guess you wouldn't. I honestly can't see ROI article lasting forever in the current forked format - it's past breaking point now with all that's gone down lately. Certainly I've had my fill of Wikipedia over it - this place makes me cringe in too many ways now. I'll think you'll eventually lose ROI altogether if you don't all really go through the compromises (all who genuinely want the name 'ROI' anyway - I still see the 'fight' as being more about keeping "Ireland" as a political fork of a post-1922 article, whatever that post-1922 article is called). Bear in mind that I came to this supporting the use of ROI at BITASK when others refused to use it, and I actually use "republic of Ireland" as a diambiguator myself. The key is though, that I insist on there being no ambiguity: which means having a non-political island article.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

See, it's difficult to respond to your first point without getting personal. Basically, anybody coming to a task force, or any other page, relies on the first few paragraphs to give them a context. What they will see at the moment is a statement of the issues as seen by Matt Lewis. It's well-written - there's nothing in it that I would take great exception to - but already on reading it I feel constrained in what I am able to say. Because the terms of reference are already set out; I had no say in the framing of them, because I didn't know then that the page was there. If we want to take a different approach - to encourage editors to basically put down their thoughts in a "stream of conciousness" kind of way - the page needs to open in a different way. Now, I don't want to say just how it would look, because that would look like I was trying to impose my own format, but it might be something along the lines of: "This task force is an attempt to clarify editors' attitudes and aspirations with regard to..." BTW I do feel you're retreating a bit from your position of "I like the idea of us all laying down what we want and don't want to see" when you say "My problem with letting people speak of what they want and don't want in self-contained sub-sections, is that it relies on them being honest and inclusive." You see, my idea in letting people say what they want is we don't bother our heads if they're honest or what their motives are; their statement is just there to be seen, and subsequent discussion will take account of it (or not, if it's obviously wacky). Things like "Q Do you insist...?" only constrain people further from saying what they really feel and encourage the impression that somebody else is setting the agenda. Something like "The most salient question to me is 'Which is more important to you? 'Republic of Ireland' as a specific title, or an island article called "Ireland" that includes all of Ireland's history including NI?'" is something that I would envisage going in your own personal position statement, rather than being part of the structure of the Task Force. Finally, I'd rather not say anything more right now about my own POV. I think that the important thing now is to get the Task Force on track, and then you and I will just be two participants making our case like everybody else. We'll discuss this further tomorrow, no doubt. Scolaire (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think BHG has a less 'free' idea of these personalised 'POV sessions'. Both would have some value, but not as much as people might hope though. Whatever happens is a step forward in a way I suppose. I think we could try to all work out salient questions between us - I've just posted this idea in the taksforce page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer there. The nub of my argument is that the framing of the questions should be the first priority of the Task Force, rather than the asking of them. Scolaire (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, with regard to "POV sessions", I don't see inclusivity as an issue at all. If somebody is going to state their POV, they should include only what they see as relevant. A holistic view comes from looking at all the statements together, not from tabulating them or breaking them down into headings. Who sets the headings anyway? It's the chicken and egg question again. Scolaire (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The extremists

As we know, there's some editors on both sides who have questionable motives. Some on the Republic of Ireland side might be UK PoVers & some on the Ireland side might be Irish Re-unionist. Problem is, how do you pick them out without breaching AGF. I hope in future, we can (both sides) shoot down the PoV accusations from both sides (when they occur). GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? We can't just pretend the extremists don't exist! That is just simply misleading people. We are here partly because I've dealt with this head on. If was so simple, it wouldn't be an issue - we would probably have a logical disam-page solution, or something similar. Most 'ROI-pushers' by your appraisal would be horrified by the disharmony caused all over Wikipedia - the political forking in "Ireland", the confused pages, the endless disruption to Talks. Have you ever asked yourself why people fight so (frankly) ruthlessly about this? I'm sure I don't have to tell you all this! For many of the most committed people, wanting the hopelessly inefficient and unhappy 'status quo' to remain is far more than simply to "help lesson confusion over the usage of the name Ireland, for less familiar viewers"!! The taskforce has just about survived the AFD it seems, but it could still break down at any time. I can't let people hide behind innocent motives - if you are including a top-Note like this, then the political "Ireland" motive has to be included.

How else could Wikipedia be in this mess? Unless Wikiedian's have an average IQ of about 20, it's the only explanation as far as I'm concerned. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Polticial motives are in play, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I really do think that both of you are way wide of the mark here. A lot of the names that came up in the MfD - Bastun, Djegan, ww2censor, BrownHairedGirl - are people I've been coming across regularly over the years. They would probably lie at different points along the political spectrum, but none of them would be anywhere close to the extremes. Probably the person on the anti side with the most strongly-held views on the Ireland/Britain/Northern Ireland question is Traditional unionist, and I can't imagine you're calling him an extremist! I do think, however, that many of the players on both sides have hidden motivations, but they are not political and they are not complex. They can be stated simply: "I'm right, I've shown time and time again that I'm right, and no Johnny-Come-Lately with a hidden agenda is going to tell me otherwise." I think if you could recognise that, it would make it far easier to open a dialogue. I'm not saying that the people I've named fall into that category, but I'm not saying that none of them do, either. I also feel very strongly that the ones that do have a political axe to grind are the ones that we need to listen to most carefully - in the end, they're most likely to be the deal-breakers, because they are the ones who actually have something to lose. Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re me being seen as a 'Johnny come lately', you may have a point, but if I felt the taskforce was stable (ie undeletable) I would be happy leaving it to do its work. Providing things aren't abandoned by the wider community and left to the same tight group of people, I think Wikipedia can sort itself out. Sometimes issues, and articles (eg British Isles, which I've been trying to contribute to for over a year, and has its own taskforce too now) can get stigmatised and effectively ostracised as far as conformity with Wikipedia and its guidelines is concerned. They then become somewhat lawless, and a hotbed for IPs and socks.

I'm working on more usage tables - as long as the data is there for people to see, and there is a place for people to see them, eventually the situation will get ironed out. What we had before was an unbreakable and directionless status-quo/polling 'loop', with different options continually failing to find consensus, and ultimately resolve, until the next one came along due to the unhappiness surrounding it all. If a workable solution is made (and there are several ones that could work), that situation couldn't possibly happen again - despite the unjustified worries (or fear tactics) of some. A workable solution will simply put an end to all that nonsense and liberate both the Irish and Northern Irish articles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may have phrased that badly (so what's new?) - I didn't mean the Johnny-Come-Lately tag to apply to you personally; it's a prujudice I think a lot of us have that we have been editing WP years longer than whoever we're arguing with. And I didn't mean that such a response or reaction was in any way reasonable. I was just saying that it's this "Nobody tells me what to think!" attitude that makes people "fight so (frankly) ruthlessly about this", as you put it, rather than an underlying political POV, or a conspiracy to subvert democracy. This is why I have a problem with the IDTF front page. To die-hard status quoers it looks like "Here is our summary of the various meanings of "Ireland", here is where we see problems arising, and we will shortly be putting forward proposals that you will like - you'll have to like them." Their reaction will be "stuff you, mate! I'm happy with things as they are and nothing you say is going to make me happy." I think it should be possible to have a briefer and far more neutral (as between ROI and Ireland) intro, such as "This task force is designed to centralise discussion on 'Ireland naming issues', which essentially revolves around whether "Ireland", as an article name and/or as a term within articles, should refer to the island of Ireland or to the sovereign state of Ireland, or whether it should be used for disambiguation only." (note no links) and remove (to the talk page maybe) the "Current approach" and "Up and running" sections altogether pending discussion/agreement on how the page should look. I know you're proposing to go to Medcab for an admin to kick-start things, but that could take some time, and we'll be judged (by our peers) by what we do while we're waiting. And any such uninvolved person would probably be happier starting with a more or less blank page than a pre-packed version that has an extremely negative critique (Red King's) half-way down the page. Well, that's way more than I meant to say when I started typing. If you want, we can discuss my personal POV on a one-to-one basis here on this page while we're waiting for things to evolve there. I just don't want to mix discussion of ideas for the Task Force and discussion of the issues in the same post. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at this again tomorrow, but you briefer intro simply doesn't show the full picture in my eyes. And it's too easy to say "what's wrong with what we've got? It's clever - it does both!" The "Ireland" article is already an alternative state article as long as it forks information and is linked to as "Ireland" (as it is all over WIkipedia). I find that politically wrong - and that is a major part of my own argument. As I have said, it's less about ROI v Ireland naming to me (ROI never bothered me, but I'm not Irish) – it’s about the forked political island of Ireland article - and that bother me a great deal, as does the completely scattered state of all the sub articles as a consequence of it.

The intro was supposed to convey all the facts without saying that any of it was deliberate. I'm very big on jsut showing the facts – it’s simply essential in fact. Unarguable facts should stand alone. If it seems to one-sided in presentation we simply must work on it. But I'm not up to giving too many 'psychological' compromises - the taskforce is pretty much underway now, and we are all adults.

I will look again at the intro, and archive some of the Talk page talk (which will help put the disharmony behind us) and even look at moving some early main page discussion into it, as you suggest. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things you say there illustrate nicely why one editor or a group of like-minded editors, however fair they are, cannot be neutral when writing a summary of the issue. "I'm very big on just showing the facts...Unarguable facts should stand alone." But none of the facts are unarguable - just look at what Red King said (and Red King isn't exactly a hero of mine), he more or less says that every fact is wrong! And "it's less about ROI v Ireland naming to me...it’s about the forked political island of Ireland article". That will be news to any neutral, and many partisans, who think (from the intro) that the TF is about naming! While it would be unfair, I can imagine many of them making out that it was a "hidden agenda". FWIW I agree with you that there is far too much overlap between the articles, and that anything that properly belongs in the Irish state article should be taken out of the Ireland article (though I disagree with the word "fork"), but that is something that needs to be stated clearly up front, not gleaned from the following paragraphs. The intro I typed above was off the top of my head; it was not meant as a proposal. We could, and should, add something like, "It aims towards a more appropriate distribution of material between the two (three?) main Ireland articles and their related articles." At some point I will open a discussion of the Project page format on the IDTF talk page, but if you'd prefer to kick it back and forth here for the moment I'm happy to do that.

When I say unaguable facts - I mean unarguable facts! I can see how the balance may be seen as unfair by one side (and that must be dealt with) - but what is factually incorrect? I tempered Red King's wish to put in contoversial material (even though it was probably true) - and he accepted it after I explained why we must keep to only the inarguable facts. It's easy for you to say "But none of the facts are unarguable" - but you are still not giving me any examples of what is still arguable! Sorry, Soclaire, but it sounds a a lttle bit like you are sweet-talking some painful information off the front page! This information is the key for me - we just need to present it fairly. Without it the 'status quo' will always be unfairly empowered, and too easily abused. You musn't forget all that I've seen in from the past from a number of people.

It takes two sides to compromise: I don't accept that one compromise was merely allowing a taksforce to happen, although I have already removed the opening proposal in good faith. To remove the other detail as you want is simply asking for too much. We can work on what we have. I'll move move some discussion to Talk as promised and start the MEDCAB appeal. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Militant republicans (which is not how I label myself) would argue that the 26 counties is not a sovereign state, and cannot be called "Ireland". They would also argue that Northern Ireland is not a country, or a province, of the United Kingdom. I myself would argue that Ireland is not a "historical country" - it is a country (in the broader sense) that continued as part of the UK after the Act of Union 1800, and did not cease to exist when somebody drew a line across a map in 1922. I have also argued above that the TF itself is not "designed to free Ireland-related talk pages of much of the discussion and polling on 'Ireland naming issues'"; by your own account, it's designed to deal with the "forked political island of Ireland article". That's only what's above the TOC. In other words, there's no such thing as an unarguable fact. I don't want you to answer any of those arguments here BTW; I was just using them as an illustration. I'm not looking for compromise here; the tit-for-tat process has never appealed to me. What I'm looking for is dialogue. As long as you're prepared to continue in dialogue I will take it here, when I think the time has come I will take it to the IDTF talk page. Catch you later. Scolaire (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you went through those points, as we can deal with all of them. I nearly re-wrote the first lines last night, demoting the "freeing up" issue to a second parag. The initial reason I created a taskforce was because the a group of people on the ROI pages were so aggressively and personally negative to more debate that I'm actually getting angry now thinking about it. Quite angry in fact. Careful that you never forget how badly one 'side' of this debate has behaved over the actual idea of ongoing open debate. It should never have been forced into spaced-out scorn-showered polls. No taskforce like this one would be ever required if the talk pages and Wikiprojects were working as they should! I have mentioned the "province" issue haven't I? I'll look at making it more clear. The UK gov calls it a "country within a country" so we simply have to show both sides. I'm not going to brush any detail under the carpet (openness is a simple matter of form for me) - and as much as anything else, over-simplicity only serves to bolster the status quo! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You end "In other words, there's no such thing as an unarguable fact." - watch me satisfactorily deal with the issues you have just brought up! As for "That's only what's above the TOC.": tell me what you don't like below the contents. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Red King got more back in more than I noticed (re the Belfast Agreement etc). I've removed a little bit, and tried to make what he wants to include more acceptable to both parties. That original paragraph I kept as simple as possible to avoid arguments of what is/isn't "official" - but if people insist on dealing with this, then we have to deal with it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Matt, you're missing the point entirely. Because you can "successfully" counter the arguments you think you have unarguable facts - the opposite is the case! The more you argue, the better you demonstrate that the facts are arguable. You can tweak till the cows come home and every single thing you say will be arguable. I don't want you to make it right for me - if it's right for me it'll be wrong for somebody else. The only possible way to make an NPOV intro to a thing like this is if everybody (or nearly everybody) on all sides says "yes, that's a good statement of the case" or "no, I don't think that should stay / the wording isn't quite right". This isn't handing over power to the status quo, it's power to the people! In the end, no matter how much work you put into it, no matter how fair you are, no matter how you try to accomodate others, if the people aren't with you your task force will fail. That's an unarguable fact. No, I'm not going to "tell you what I don't like below the TOC"; I told you how the short statement above the TOC could be argued against, and you just waved it away. What advantage is there for me in repeating the exercise? Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise: You believe it is essential for all of the salient facts to be set down at the top of the page, and that you have done it in the most neutral possible way, so that to dilute it in any way is to detract from the truth. I absolutely respect that position, even though my own position on the intro is unchanged. So how about we keep the whole lot at the top, but rename it as "Statement of the facts by Matt Lewis". That way, you present the facts at the top of the page in a section that nobody else has the right to edit, while the intro will be a far briefer introduction to the TF that editors can edit back and forth until we get a wording that's pleasing to everybody - a win/win situation! Most importantly, the "statement of facts" section in no way affects your right to write a separate "statement of POV" section if that's the road we go down. I've made a mock-up of the page at User:Scolaire/IDTF main page. Tell me what you think. Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Johnny-leave-angrily. IP.86 has worn out his/her stay on these British/Irish articles - I congratulate him/her, though - not only has he/she driven a British Isles title supporter away? but also a Republic of Ireland move to Ireland (state) supporter, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He'll blow it soon GoodDay - his intelligence is entirely over rated, and he's a troll at heart. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser time?

I'm fed up with IP.86 & IP.79. They're being completely unreasonable about not signing-in. GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I know who they are (I've been through the diffs) but I haven't go the time or the will to put the 'watertight' case. I had enough of that with WPeire. Have to go now - I'll be back on tonight. I'm might go after GH at some point - the more I look into him the more I see him as actually criminalistic. One day international internet laws will get up to speed with cases like him. 79 is just sad imo, and I'd rather beat him with an accepted Intro edit on British Isles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen to not respond to either of them anymore. My good faith in them has evaporated. PS- See ya later. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone will provide me convincing evidence that one of these IPs is Goldheart I will either see if the IP can be blocked as a banned editor. He has no right to edit here. That was whom I first suspected, of course, but I could find no evidence myself. Feel free to email me with anything you have. Rockpocket 17:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence of him editing as various other 86.42.xx.xx's (even one on Jimbo Wales' talk page, signed by a bot as Gold heart - like a typical fruitcake I think he's even been there twice), the time consuming thing is making them connect to this newer stable 86.46 IP. That has to be done via language and interests, editing patterns etc, as clearly 86.42 is not only his. He has wider editing patters than Wikipeire (and is smarter and a lot more cynical too), so I could see it was going to be a lot harder when I was looking. There is a lot of evidence to work on though. Unfortunately a lot of it is frankly depressing, and I'm figged off enough with this place as it is. After windling out the extra articles, I'm sure there are enough uncanny edit/comment/abuse connections to a make block on this single IP work, but it will certainly need some work getting there. There is an offwiki website where he has boasted that he edits all the time, but I doubt that would be admissible as evidence though. I'll look at building a case if I have the time. Only seriously regulating IP use will stop someone as committed as this though, surely.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've chosen to sit out the British Isles & Republic of Ireland related discussions. The long-time IPs refusals to sign-in are too annoying. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep out of BI myself. IDTF or BITASK are not too bad for IPs (at the moment anyway) - Wikipeire's only been there (IDTF) the once I notice! I'm buggered if I'm chasing him again. Next time I go to BI hopefully it will be with another history-included Intro proposal.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's friday night in the UK (just gone 9) so BI will probably be quiet for a while, then full of drunk IP's! I'm not going to respond to anything unless it is really OTT. I'm pretty tired tonight, but I'm trying to get some more tables done, maybe look at GH a bit more. Tomorrow (Sat) could be a lively day. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

'drunk IPs' on the BI page? If I recall that was you last weekend, or was it the weekend before? But how nice of you to be above it this weekend. And, yes, I'm sure you are trying to keep off the BI page and that's it's coincidental that you've been there for most of today.86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC) PS. If you really know who "they" are, tell us. You are full of claims, but no substance. In the real world, which you are clearly not in, people who make unsubstantiated claims are sued when they cannot support them. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You sound like you have never paid for anything in your life! Even from an extremely litigious American that would have been a daft comment - but from someone from Dublin? I can't believe I actually credited you with some "smartness" above (albeit only compared to Wikipeire - the guy who completely gave his last 'semi-secure' sockpuppet away by making his first British Isles comment, "Is Matt drunk?").

Your reasoning that a couple of spanned-out comments on a talk page constitutes "being there for most of the day" speaks volumes about you.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Alzheimer's disease

Matt, please go back and edit your last couple of contributions to Talk:Alzheimer's disease, to make it utterly clear that "you" does not refer to me. My contribution is immediately above yours. Thank you. --Una Smith (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've moved one of yours in one. I thought I actually mentioned her name - I'm not a fan of MEDMOS at all. Wikipedia has done my head in to be honest. Almost everything I've tried to do, no matter how small, has been such a huge effort that I'm questioning myself for being here every day I edit now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't loose heart. Collaborative editing sometimes fractures on "big topic" articles, while "lesser" articles are ignored. Eg, Sundowning (dementia) and Wandering (dementia). Would you care to work on those a while? --Una Smith (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd prepared some cultural/carers edits to AD (it actually included a mention of Old timers - but don't tell anyone) - but I couldn't get them finished - some of it was from old notes and the whole ref thing is just so much work. I might still try and put some of it in, but I've simply taken too many other things on recently (including starting a taskforce on a political matter that needed to be made, or it would have lost its chance), and I decided a while back to resign at the end of the month too (I'm literally counting the days). I've always argued that AD is more than a dementia - it's a very individual disease first and foremost, and the main AD page is where I wanted to get the social stuff properly covered (take your eye off it and its out a week later in a 'general copy edit'). I originally proposed Sociological and cultural aspects of Alzheimers disease (with the name based on the autism sub) - but someone made a gerneral dementia one around the same time. The intention seemed to be to generally to get it out of the main article - not the best way to go about it imo. Alzheimer's equals the Alzheimer's experience as far as I'm concerned. I actually 'policy' behind me there, but MEDMOS is a rule unto itself. It's all deep in the archives now of course, but SG ought to know that I wrote a great deal of the exisiting intro (the format as it stands is still how I re-structured it from a the very short intro we had)- it was a battle enough to keep all the jargon and theory etc coming back into it, and other specific parts from being removed, but it settled because I protected it daily using MEDMOS's 'general reader' guideline. MEDMOS didn't suggest a Scoiety and culture section at the time (it was a real muddle over that), although some articles used one.

These problems are partly to do with the FA procedure, which I find a very controlling one The whole FA thing has annoyed me since it started in earnest. The maddest thing about FAs is that they could link to 20 sub pages on toilet tissue and they wouldn't care at MOS - I asked them directly in FA Talk whether the quality of the subpages mattered and they said "no". People like SG jsut assume the content, balance, weight, accuracy and quality etc is covered by us. Outside of style concerns, she mainly just seems big on 'medical' not being 'social', I strongly suspect because it’s part of some kind 'macho' scene that seems to be going on, or something wider they call 'cruft removal' perhaps - which may possibly be linked to the old 'alternative health v pharmaceutical wealth' argument somewhere down the line: I've never properly looked but I've had my suspicions. It's a bit of a minefield anyway so I;ve kept out of it on Wikipedia. I recommend some alt health (not much) but I don't want to be slagged off about it - its just what I've read has worked and have seen work. AD is terminal and there is no cure. I look in pubmed, and its full of the stuff, as its where they all go to find advances. You can find refs for anything - the simple fact is that there is no cure, and a lnumber of things seem to work as much as the pharmo drugs, which is partly I think why the UK is so shamelessly tight about paying for them. I used to order galanthamine in capsules from the US, but you can't beat a small pharmo tablet. It's simply hard to say what is isn't good advice. I wrote the line on mental stimulation in the lead, and I'm not even sure that is good advice in itself - you can over-work a mind with AD, and imagininative people seem very prone to developing it. Removing clutter and re-planting what is important seems to me the key, although good music certainly works wonders. AD as an article isn't a bad one (it's about 3/4 of a properly informative article I would say), but this nor other medical FAs like autism are as "prestigious" as they think. And I've seen them boast about Autism at MEDMOS without even knowing what its main subs actually are. Anyway enough of this rant. I'll look at those articles, but I won't contribute unless I have some time next week. --Matt Lewis (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care to discuss personal politics, except to say that Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot has much good advice for dealing with it and avoiding it. I see a lot of editors get into trouble because they feel at liberty to make friendly personal comments, then when they get mad they forget to refrain from personal comments and the result is incivility. Trading personal favors is another instance. I see you making another common mistake: assuming that because some editors work that way, Wikipedia works that way and you have to work that way too. I like this advice; it is not entirely relevant here, but the part about affective conflict vs cognitive conflict is very important. --Una Smith (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a step back and consider what is AD-specific and what relates to dementia in general, or still more generally what relates to dementia and psychosis. --Una Smith (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't assume I'm asking you to discuss personal politics - I'm not at all - as I admitted, it was just a bit of rant. I hope this doesn't seem too rude, but I won't read the link on conflict, however well you may intend it. I know actual WP policy better than most people, and have put a huge amount of myself (which reads good work) into Wikipedia, and AD in particular - although I would never get any recognition for it at AD, although that doesn't bother me in itself unless it effects the article.

I'm not I need to 'step back' any more than I normally do, to be able to see what is AD-specific and what is dementia-specific: as I said above, AD to me is first and foremost a highly specific disease, with specific symptoms, that although vary per individual, are particularly specific to AD. And if something also fits also into the more general realm of dementia (as will obviously happen), it hardly makes it less relevant to AD. Part of my issue with MEDMOS is that I found it is strongly against 'forking' lesser informaiton - but Wikipedia guidelines and policy are full of forking - wherever it stops Wikipedia from being a labyrinth on links. Bandwidth is not the premium they say it is. I've seen constant attempts to cart various matters off to general dementia by those who perceive the AD article as 'technical only'. The article that has mattered to me is called Alzheimer's. Despite a below-the-belt 'general medical disruptor' comment that may have been aimed towards me, AD and MEDMOS are the only medical articles I think I've actually worked on, apart from highlighting an error I noticed in Autism once.

I'm winding down on Wikipedia anyway, as I said, so in general I suppose these kind of civility issues are somewhat less of an issue as I guess they would normally be. I have always been a forthright editor anyway, and they know that at AD, hence their hardly conciliatory responses to me. I think most people who frequent AD are too forward themselves to pursue general Wikiquettes to an outburst from a contributor like myself - now they have FA, they'll be more likely to go after new people for actually applying content matters that are disagreed with, and then react outside of policy to the reaction they get. I won't edit anymore at AD as I'm tidying things up elsewhere - I'm fine with that as I can write about AD in other places (and get paid too). I've given enough to the article to be philosophical about leaving it, and I never made those FA deadlines after all.

So if I do cross 'civility' it's not through ignorance of what it is, and I'm never abrupt or forward without a good underlying case - although I certainly wasn't in a good (or particularly wise) mood the other day I'll freely admit. But I've not been in a good mood about Wikipedia for a while, hence me moving on when I've weened myself off. If you are working on sundowning etc then good stuff - it's all needed, that's for sure, but its the main articles that really get looked at.--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re it's the main articles that really get looked at, I am sorry you think that is true. I don't. Main topic articles may get a lot of hits, but what matters is what gets read. People read about what matters to them. Many Wikipedia contributors think like you do, that "main" articles get read more, so they stuff those articles full of whatever tangents they can work in there, and to contain the bloat they cut out other tangents, sometimes even content that belongs in the article. I so dislike that practice. I gave you those links because I think they are worth reading more than once. Especially about cognitive vs affective dispute. --Una Smith (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

IDTF main page

Hi, Matt. I know you were involved in other things yesterday so I don't know if you saw my last couple of posts in the "Extremists" section. To be sure there's no misunderstanding later on, I'm going to repost here:

• How about this for a compromise: You believe it is essential for all of the salient facts to be set down at the top of the page, and that you have done it in the most neutral possible way, so that to dilute it in any way is to detract from the truth. I absolutely respect that position, even though my own position on the intro is unchanged. So how about we keep the whole lot at the top, but rename it as "Statement of the facts by Matt Lewis". That way, you present the facts at the top of the page in a section that nobody else has the right to edit, while the intro will be a far briefer introduction to the TF that editors can edit back and forth until we get a wording that's pleasing to everybody - a win/win situation! Most importantly, the "statement of facts" section in no way affects your right to write a separate "statement of POV" section if that's the road we go down. I've made a mock-up of the page at User:Scolaire/IDTF main page. Tell me what you think.

PS I've also put down my own thoughts on an opening paragraph. They are at User talk:Scolaire/IDTF main page. If it were to go in I would consider it as a draft only, and I would encourage yourself and other participants to edit it.
PPS I do know that you've made your request for a neutral at MedCab, and that's cool, but I don't think we should "freeze" the page or the project while we wait for a response - there is a real danger that somebody will come along, see the lack of activity and say "so what is there to chair?" Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I did catch what you wrote eventually (not immediately, as it was hidden by recent changes) - I mulled it over then got taken with other things. On one had I'm happy to do it, on another hand I've seen the smallest compromises on Wikipedia lead to the evaporation of what was originally there. In one way my name essentially makes it just another partisan opinion, newcomers could complain, people could even create counter versions. Most of this is all very democratic - but will any of it help the taskforce? Being weakened it is more likely to get scrubbed, and I feel we need something stable at the top of all this. On the other hand it is just adding a signature, and will give some people a distance from it that could make them feel more secure and less cajoled. But is there a call for ths now other than from yourself? People are talking of moving forward..

I could put a disclaimer instead - ie "This was originally written for the taskforce's creation by Matt Lewis, and afterwards amended by, and per some suggestions from others. It is not the work of all the participants, and some may disagree with presentational and factual elements of the text.".

To be fair, every time someone has wished for a change in it, it has eventually been worked in. I am sure it can be worked on further - thus far only you and Red King have seen particular issues with it (unless I've forgotten anyone), and most people have discussed moving on now, esp at the MfD. If people are talking of BHG's and your own proposal to collate opinion, you would thing they are reasonably happy with the intro as it stands now? I'll put a disclaimer in anyway, as I can't see that compromising it too much. But I don't want to screw too much with anything that has been generally accepted, which I'm sure you can understand.

I agree that we shouldn't freeze anything. I think Snowded is removing the request until BHG has responded - I'm not sure.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at your Intro thoughts (User talk:Scolaire/IDTF main page) now. --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember if I've trangressed this way myself at any point in the intro (and if I have it will need addressing) - but if we over-explain how people have thought, we could start to create self-fulfulling prophesies. In terms of new debate, this needs to be a fresh start I feel. The facts behind the opinions are far more important to move forward on than the actual opinions (which will be re-expressed anyway). Using words like "many" draws out and rather pins down the schisms. I'll check to see if I've not done this myself.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On the "Statement of the facts" section: funnily enough, for me one of the big advantages is that it would make newcomers less likely to complain. As it stands I think people like me tend to think "I want to join in this, but I don't necessarily subscribe to those facts." If it's signed by you, they'd be more likely to say "fair enough, that's how Matt Lewis sees it and he's the originator of this page, I'll make my own views clear in whatever is the agreed format for this task force." On the other hand, if we left the section heading as "Statement of the facts" and put your disclaimer underneath it, I could live with that too, though my preference would be to have your name in the heading. I do appreciate that you have worked hard to work in anything that I and others have suggested to you, but at the end of the day it's still your statement of the facts, edited by you to incorporate your understanding of what others are saying; that's not quite the same thing as an agreed wording. In fact, when you think about it, if you could write the perfect statement of facts that every editor could agree with, the work of the task force would be done! Out of a perfect statement of facts a perfect solution would naturally arise. Also, in this instance I would be wary of taking silence as consensus, since the great majority of the nay-sayers have not come on to the project page at all, except to say that it should be deleted.

On the intro thoughts: I don't really understand "self-fulfulling prophesies". What can it prophesy that hasn't long since come to pass? The task force arose out of a need, the need arose out of a dispute, and the dispute arose out of two conflicting approaches to a question of naming. As I see it, anybody reading that intro will know at once that they are one of the "many" who object to Republic of Ireland, one of the "many" who oppose Ireland (bracket) or one of the "many" who have no strong feeling either way. You've said yourself many times that we can't make a start by ignoring the problems that gave rise to the debate (did you notice, by the way, how far I've come from my own previous position - ROI is now numerically the first of the problems!). Having said all that, you can edit my sandbox to your heart's content - that's what it's for as far as I'm concerned. You can edit the paragraph directly, or copy and paste it and edit the copy, or write something else entirely. Feel free, and have fun. Scolaire (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it later, and add the disclaimer at the top as I planned to do. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Scolaire, I'm torn between doing different things on WP at the moment. I've leaving here at the end of the month, so it's highly unlikely I'll see any semblance of conclusion on the IDTF. Basically I'm winding down slowly - and I'd simply leave right now if I didn't. I can imagine a good outcome for IDTF if its done wisely and gets just a little new blood, but WIkipedia itself doesn't bear thinking about. All the people are here to move into the places, they communicate how they want, they do their thing. All they have to is start lying, and its the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and from the more infested armchair. Some people dominate, others fall into line. No big player in the west right now is against controlling others, or truly into freedoms, and Wikipedia will likely follow that pattern: everything is in place within it. It's a knowledge base that one person can be sold, and where access is the key. It's built itself no ethical foundation at all, and I found out today that even the core policies - if you really try and follow them - are confusingly written. No wonder people disagree about what they are. I asked them what a 'third party' was and they are currently asking it themselves! What a load of crap, eh? The key is that Wikipedia itself doesn’t care. The opening of verifiability in a subtle was says it all.

I'll probably be on and off a bit over the week, and will be cleaning up a couple of articles I've been part of that are easy enough to do. It won't be anything stressful though - so no FAs or taskforces, but possibly British Isles for one last proposal, although I very much doubt it after I've kept off for a bit. BI's an IP infested swamp - and what I can't take any more of is my time being wasted, whoever or whatever it is. It's made me over cautious about editing - and the truth is that I don't want to actually go ahead and do it. I think "why the hell am I doing this?". Even places where I know what to write and even have the refs. I think of the situation that could occur and I;m just not interested, no matter what good it could do. It's not good for prose to not want to write.

Good luck with IDTF - you can do what you like with my work on it - name it, put the disclaimer in, whatever. The main thing is that the taskforce itself seems to have survived. It sounds to me like you can at least accept the idea of a change, which is good enough for me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the IDTF, Matt. However, I'm certain the IP accounts will invade it (as they have the BI page). GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I'm really sorry that you're so disillusioned with Wikipedia. I have to say that, however maddening it is for me sometimes, I still love it and I still love doing what I'm doing. I want to say - and I mean this sincerely - that it has been a privilege to work with you over the last six days (I can't believe it's only six days!). Together I think we've gone a long way towards getting this discussion back onto a proper footing. I'm sorry you're going but I'm glad that, this time around, we'll part on speaking terms. Mind yourself. Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks by the way, I didn't mean to let that pass. Good luck with the taskforce. We certainly have moved forward together - it was a shame BHG stepped in and out, in a way (although she meant well of course) because now she has vanished again it's lost momentum. She basically had a similar idea to you anyway. Perhaps you could liaise with Snowded on what is happening with her? I don't know how long he intends to wait for her to return (she is always on and off WP these days I think?), and the comments on MEDCAB talk are hardly inviting. I would be inclined to leave a proper and optimistic request at MEDCAB, and perhaps give the guy below a message, maybe after a week or so. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I like to screw around on User talk pages, to blow off steam. Orangemarlin's page is good for that, because it's really easy to shoot the shit with him and get him riled up. I apologize if that causes you offense. I don't talk about baseball and football and silliness on article talk pages, but my usertalk (and OM's, ad others) iss free reign for whatever you need to beef about or vent about. You are invited, feel free to lay it on my thick, I can take it. :-) Be warned though, that you'll get razzed right back, probably. I rarely get a chance to reply to anyone without edit conflicts on my own page. My "admin integrity" is doing just fine, btw, I don't go around puffing my chest out or anything like that, I don't "misuse tools" or make idle threats to misuse them (which would be breaches of my integrity I assume). Be well, I will be too. Keeper ǀ 76 15:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I let off steam on the Alzheimer's page after seeing something that has annoyed me for a while - I have a valid point underneath it all, but making it really wasn't wise. AD is not strictly a Wikipedia article any more (it’s an FA) and I knew full well how the people who monitor it feel about my points. I should simply have proved the content point in the article, but my work is buried in notes under other notes: but cultural/social information has to be done absolutely perfectly as it won't be met positively or improved upon - it will simply be reverted unless done extemely well, and even then it can get slowly written out - and I'm finding it hard to edit at all at the moment, as I've pretty much had it with Wikipedia in general.

The admin 'integrity' comment was more than partly a general pot shot - as I say I'm disillusioned with Wikipedia, and I saw at least one other admin on the talk page I’m sure. As for OM I don't know what to make of him - he often calls things I have a passing interest in "cruft", which I don’t find that helpful: it’s a kind of conversation-stopper more than anything. He ought to realise that a natural interest in what might be good or relevant is not a dumb appraisal of what obviously isn't (whatever I would guess he means by "cruft" – which is far to undefined and subjective to a logical chap like mine – I go mainly by my own instinct, experience and research – then pass it by all of Wikipedia policy – which I understand more than most - and I try to follow it 100%). I don't appreciate the 'jobsworth' argument that if we let in one thing, who knows what other junk will have to be allowed? Each issue has its own story. I'm not sure OM shows much interest towards subtly, grey area, or a ‘general reader’, whole-experience approach to cultural issues, especially. That does seems to be in-line with MEDMOS, admittedly, but policy to me always reads a little differently to MEDMOS. IMO, professional people, or even students, who want ‘pure’ medial articles would hardly be going to Wikipedia, so why make it so exclusively for them? Those people come here for that extra information that comes from Wikipedia being a more-inclusive ‘general reader' whole-experience encyclopedia , and they come in the millions, I would think. From all countries and backgrounds too – the UK is having a huge foreign influx into the NHS for example. We have to manage that information effectively, and Wikipedia policy - although certainly a little confused at times, and misunderstood by many who haven’t fully read it – is still in place to effectively do it.

I've actually written copy professionally, and I can often see what is useful information straight away - the dismissive attitude to the re-occurring "old timer's" thing (what my own temper flared over) has actually always slightly irritated me, though I’ve previously felt it too minor to mention - I simply felt it would find its way in a relevant section one day. It would have to be the cultural/social section though.

As for OM not exactly being conciliatory (!) - I've never quite forgotten his first comment to me when he first came to AD - it was actually too rude, and clearly-mistaken too, for the Wiki alert I started to file, so instead I asked him several times to delete it, which he eventually did with a grump - and perhaps not untypically without any apology. But since then he has done sincere work on the AD page at least, so I’ve always tried to be open minded about him. But I don't like the thought that new people around sensitive issues are being ‘talked down’ to, very much like they are not in the gang: Wikipedia is supposed to be open to everyone- and upset, heavy-hearted and well-meaning people will come through AD all the time. The issues the monitors are clearly bored with will never simply go away. I guess the schoolyard-ish atmosphere narked me on his talk page, as I saw a bit of a possible ‘den’ re the infamous ‘cabal’ theory. I've never personally been a ‘group’ person, and grouping can rather-suddenly make Wikipedia quite difficult at times, esp in a one-on-one argument, and a bunch of other people appear, and you have to reiterate things etc to people to haven’t always been part of previous discussion at all. Very daunting (and surely off-putting) to someone new who is trying to help. Consensus is certainly found in numbers, but numbers aren't always right, especially in political issues, my usual haunt.

As for FA's - next step is Veropedia, imo. I've never really liked them, and have been open about that from the start. When the Wikipedia experience is so often several small steps back for every significant stop forward - why spend so much energy protecting these existing articles from structural change? There are a million struggling articles to deal with, and the FA passing process is too focused toward style before content for me, and in the way they are protected is hardly conducive to the open editing that Wikipedia is supposed to be about. But I guess that's just my opinion.

Thanks for the apology anyway - you did good work at Wales (which has since transpired would not have been so difficult at all if it wasn't for a paarticular sock). The pipe linking approach lead to an actual new article being made.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Retiring?

I hope you'll reconsider. But, in case you've made up your mind? Let me know, so I can thank you for your help on Wikipedia (and for putting up with me). GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm weaning myself off - I don't want withdrawals or a feeling of something left to do! I'm also going to look at writing elsewhere, as I've done at times in the past. Everyday life is bit stressful too right now, so I should be more careful really. I've had a reasonable run here - I doubt that many like me carry on doing this forever. I've given myself to the end of the month to tie a few things up on a 'feel like it' basis, and generally more relaxed pace. They will be the more easily-produced sideline stuff, rather than the main issues though. I might get another BI proposal in if I feel like it, but I certainly won't watch the response! It may encourage a slightly more inclusive intro perhaps, but people don't seem to see BI as a normal Wikipedia article, so I wouldn't hold up much hope. I've always had a very 'straight laced' view of Wikipedia - theoretically it should be able to be what it claims it is, and claims it wants to be. As for the reality behind the claims I'm not so sure. I've promised others now I won't go into October anyway - yes I've abused my family and social life too!--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I appreciate the effort & energy you've put into attempting to solve the Republic of Ireland & British Isles related disputes. It's a task which can bring alot of heat to the editor who takes it on. Good luck, in your future adventures. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks GD. Perhaps you could suggest their revival, if they do genuinely die a death! If IDTF does get anywhere, BITASK may certainly need a poke. I think villiage Pump is a usual destination before official guidelines are made. Good luck to you too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

MEDCAB requested help

Hiya, did you get anyone to offer to be chair? If not, Id be willing to take it on. I do 3O and MEDCAB mediation. I've never even been to Ireland let alone edited a topic here. I do hear it's lovely over there, however. I'm Canadian/English if that helps :-) Let me know, Thanks! fr33kman ^{t - c} 14:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Fr33k. Matt is, in his own words, "weaning himself off" at the moment, so I'm taking the liberty of answering you. You sound like just the guy we had in mind. Why don't you drop over to the task force talk page and offer your services? If you want a bit of background, you could do worse than to read the Ireland disambiguation section on this talk page and BrownHairedGirl's post to the MfD and following posts. Cheers. Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I will interject here. My only worry is that Fr33kman only has one month’s full on Wikipedia experience (though I appreciate his response, and the enthusiasm too). It has prompted me to email Brown Eyed Girl asking her to log-in and reply to Snowded. I think we should give this a week or so as a proper request - without the Snowded's comment questioning the consensus for it! I don't know why Snowded hasn't removed his comment (and the request itself), as I suggested - but it's not a proper request until it is done properly.

Sorry to be tough, but I would initially want more experience, and perhaps come back to Fr33k in a week or so, and see if he is still interested. We could well have some good admin (or simply experienced editors) who are simply waiting for BHG's reply! It's a bit like recruiting for an open post isn't it? Lets try and get the most suitable person we can, and perhaps 'keep on hold' Fr33k (who is ultimately the first person interviewed - it's never a pleasant experience, I know!). --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems at all, do let me know if I can be of help. I do medical malpractice mediation in real-life if that helps. But no problems if you'd like someone more experienced :-) Take care! fr33kman ^{t - c} 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sure you'll be contacted if needed. What a job by the way! Is that for the NHS or for the legal profession? I hope you are not too nice to the NHS. We really suffer with the progressive disease of their damage limitation obsessions, when they do something wrong they can pay for it purely as a consequence of that imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a fun job: you can be remarkably useful in sorting out life altering problems for others in which you have no personal stake (it allows you to see the truer picture of the issue, and sleep at night). I started when doing a MSc in genetics and started dating a lawyer (who has long since gone). I am an independent and do all forms of ADR for medical malpractice cases. I'm now going to medical school as well and then hope to do the legal conversion course and start suing instead :-) I actually act as the "judge" in arbitrations and the "negotiator" in mediations. The really cool bit is that my decisions are binding on the courts which is kinda cool. Cheerio :-) fr33kman ^{t - c} 00:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Hi Matt. I've just nominated List of United States journalism scandals for deletion. I don't see the point of two articles giving the same information. Redddogg (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out on this. I'm sorry that both articles were not deleted, as you suggested. Redddogg (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the deletion processes are exactly Wikipedia finest hour, IMO. Can I ask you to keep an eye on the "madrassa" issue - I just don't want to see the word itself referred to in a negative light. As for a the list of scandals - that's Wikipedia's problem.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Redddogg (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles Task Force

Matt, I've been out of a lot of loops this past month. Remind me what happened to the British Isles Task Force please. Is it possible to make some progress on this? Sorry if it's a dumb question... --HighKing (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's waiting on the Irish disambiguation taskforce, which is waiting for when Snowded decides that Brown Haired Girl isn't going to reply to him (she's not even answering her email, and could be on one of her long breaks). I think he sees his future on Wikipedia as an admin, which is gettin in the way of things right now. But that's just my opinion of course. Maybe you can help prod WP:IDTF along? Scolaire was doing a few things, but I'm not sure if he hasn't taken a something of a break now, like yourself.

I've had enough of Wikipedia and I planned to retire at the end of Sept - truth i'm still doing a couple of things I wanted to finish first, but as I've already taken on other things in life, and I'm still squeezing the Wiki stuff out, on pretty minimum desire I have to say. I've made this diagram which I'll try soon with some new text. I also need to move UKCOUNTRYREFS into the old WP:UKNATIONALS - remember that? I'm back in design now so I find far easier to make graphics than to labour through writing to policy, especiallt when too few want to go by it. It's like digging a grave.

Geographical and traditional boundries

Do you think the diag would be accepted? I'm prepared to work on it a little more, up to the weekend max - but I've made various promises on and off Wiki to leave, so I won't be fighting for any of this stuff (though I will get it in).--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to slightly better version. You might have to cache reload.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt. You know what - my own mini-wikibreak is because I've also had enough of Wikipedia too. It wears you down - especially when you devote as much time and energy to it as you did recently, and most especially when you spend time in the ... contentious edit spaces. I hope you manage to find a workable balance and don't leave the project altogether. I think the trick is to understand that it isn't Instant Messaging :-) Take your time - the issues don't go away.

On the subject of the diagram - I like it! Except for the "Republic of Ireland" tag :-) but if that's the consensus, it's perfect. Nice one. --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The British isles

There is no "consensus" on the RoI; there is a majority vote imposing a particular POV. Anyway; don't stay away too long Matt - you are one of the good'uns. Sarah777 (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, it appears that majority voting is the same as consensus - like it or not. Any arguments otherwise are futile. You can only hope to sway the majority. --HighKing (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Wiki notion of "consensus" = majority vote!!!!! The pathetic and hypocritical thing is that they pretend is isn't! If that was openly admitted we could tackle systematic bias from a stronger position; but that is exactly why they won't admit the bleedin' obvious and they maintain the pretense of "consensus". Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just following a convo thread and it led me to your new diagram. Just thought I'd point out that the Northern Isles and Hebrides, and Anglesey, and the Isle of Wight (and some tiny islands and islets like Lindisfarne, the Isles of Scilly, and Lundy) are not part of Great Britain as such. Pendantic I know, but worth letting you know before it goes live anywhere. Sorry! :S --Jza84 |  Talk  20:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The diagram looks like a kidney bean actually.Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re leaving - I'll finish what I intended to, then I suppose I'll see again how I feel (it's taking me a while, but I'm enjoying the break from it). I've promised to throw in the 'badge', but I notice looking through the weekend difs, that some real bad news has registered a new account (with a typical flourish) - so my private eye pretentions might get the better of me. This extremely mean bean back on the scene has taken to using my 'full' name - I'm obliged to address him by his notorious moniker, as I did with his IP. We'll see if he does a U turn on the relative value of IP's. He won't get an easy ride if I decide to stay, though he only plans to ruffle feathers as the issue is getting attention, I'll make sure he doesn't enjoy his ride.

As for Great Britain, My SOED (the two volume - second biggest - OED) says this:

Great Britain England, Wales, and Scotland considered as a unit (see also BRITAIN); the name is also often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom. Wales was politically incorporated with England in the 16th century, and the Act of Union formally united Scotland with England in 1707. In 1801, Great Britain was united with Ireland (from 1921, only Northern Ireland) as the United Kingdom. (See also UNITED KINGDOM.)

Britain /brt()n/ n.1 [OE Breoten, Breten, Bryten f. L Brittones (see BRITON); later forms f. OFr. Bretaigne (mod. -agne), f. L Brittan(n)ia f. Brit(t)anni, corresp. to Gk Bret(t)anoi, Pret(t)anoi.] More fully (esp. as a political term) Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man. Also (as a political term) the United Kingdom, Britain and its dependencies, (formerly) the British Empire.

Britain, after the OE period, was for long used only as a historical term, but in 1604 James I & VI was proclaimed 'King of Great Britain' and this name was adopted for the then United Kingdom at the Union in 1707. Britainer n. = BRITON n. L16-E19.[1]

British Isles a group of islands lying off the coast of NW Europe, from which they are separated by the North Sea and the English Channel. They include Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Scilly Isles, and the Channel Islands.

So I'll keep GB as the same, but I'll think about adding a 'Britain' that includes NI in dotted lines, though I don't really see the point- - it seems clear to me that people use 'Britain' in a polical/cultural sense, and rarely (if ever) as a shorthand for a geographical GB. If there is evidence to back up the SOED's "sometimes", I'll look at dotting GB around the Isle of Man. My edition is the one before last - early 90's - they only update the OED every ten years or so--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

22 & counting

Hello Matt. I was wondering, which of those socks is Wikipiere's original account. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Melvo was December 2006 - User:Wikipéire was Feb 2008 - who knows what else he did in 2007. Snowded maybe right - he may be very young. But how then can his edits be so worthy? Gullopez apparently convinced Alison of that - but I don't get it at all - and I've been through them. Whatever age someone is (and we can't prove that anyway) Wikipeire has had countless chances to start again, and he's never appreciated the concept of other people's time or opinion. Going through 22 socks is simply an act of trolling, not just of mere 'frustration' (presumably the arguement 'for' him). We can't feel sorry for him just because he may be young, and can't be that young anyway - he's early 20's at least - so specifically 'immature', and Wikipeida is not the best place at all to get life skills imo. That's a 'real world' thing, where people can really see your face, and dishonesty can really trip you up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in support of a 'community ban' of this Wikipedian (Melvo, Wikipiere, UncleFisty, etc). GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've not heard of that before today I must admit - I better look it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

<----- :-) -- --HighKing (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That guy's everywhere. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why's he playing the Manics I wonder? I'd like to see him tell them Wales isn't a country.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You found my old myspace. Bored? That is not the manic street preachers Matt and even if it were, I'd gladly tell them that Wales isn't a country. No matter how much you or Wikipedia says it, its not true. Check out other encyclopedias. Anyway I'm done with sort of thing. Téigh trasna ort féin. :)213.202.150.114 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? I just thought the photo was very funny - the elusive Melvo. --HighKing (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Care to translate that into English? GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Google is your friend. --HighKing (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just found the translation, I've never been so shocked! :o I may have to lie down for a while to recover. Jack forbes (talk) 10:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe one of the other Irish editors will oblige eh?213.202.150.114 (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, just google it. And then lie down. :-) And it's not the phrase I usually use for the same thing. Nice one Devlo - perhaps we'll start an Irish language school here on wikiland ;-) --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm already lying down, I think I've recovered now. I'm curious, which phrase would you use? :) Jack forbes (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought nobody would even ask! I use "Feisigh do thóin féin" which by using common enough Irish phrases, then if you know that "Póg mo Thóin" means "Kiss my Ass", and "Sinn Féin" means "Our selves" (and Mé Féin means myself, and a "MéFéiner" is Hiberno-English slang for somebody only looking out for themselves), then it translates as "go and do something yourself to your ass...:-) --HighKing (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And here was me thinking Irish was such a poetic language. Bet you won't find that in many poems. Jack forbes (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In otherwords, it can't be good. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Who knows, it may be a fond farewell. Jack forbes (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are now right. Slán. WikipÉire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.150.114 (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ip's

Hi Matt, as I have mentioned to GoodDay, I am not sure telling ip's to register is going to work, it may only make them more determined not to. I certainly agree with you, but I think it might be a good idea to take it somewhere the community can discuss it. I don't mean you specificaly, but someone may have to eventually. Jack forbes (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about an IP usage taskforce (it should be theoretically possible if the right place is found to attach it too - but it would have to be in Wikipedia and not one of the WikiMedia offshoots, so immediate complaints by some people would almost be guaranteed. As GoodDay says, it's all about energy. It could be just left to run, and people could put a support graphic on their user pages if it ever needed votes (or a petition). Somewhere central for ongoing discussions and placing subpages might be all it needs. I would guess that the normal debating approaches like Village Pump will have been done to death, so something more dramatic would be needed to get people's attention. Someone would need to research what has been done on the matter so far, what is possible, what Jimbo Wales and his staff thinks, etc. I agree that it shouldn't be left to admins or employees - the people who experience IP on an editing/talk-page basis should be able to debate it. Who knows, maybe there even is a form of taskforce already, but I doubt it's in Wikipedia space, that's the problem.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I could always ask Jimbo Wales page and ask what we can do about this, I will ask, but with my record I'm not sure if they will take it seriously . Do you think it would be a good idea to go straight there? If you do, I will ask! Jack forbes (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked a question at jimbo wales page, we will see the answer soon I hope. Jack forbes (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a good reply, gotta go. Jack forbes (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a good idea - you certainly got some useful links out of it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Re Start

Hi Matt, the discussions at WP:BISLES have hopefully restarted. Can you remind me - what are the steps that you see for this? If we can get some agreement on usage of the term, is the next step to adopt it as a MOS? Really hope to see your participation on this. --HighKing (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm off out tonight, but I plan to spend as much of the weekend as I can on this. How do you feel about working with Scolaire and Snowded on revitalising Ireland WP:IDTF? It would be useful to know which way this is likely to go. I know you would be happy with an ROI version to start with, but he problem is that Snowded (and Sarah to a lesser degree) are making demands on BI usage based on the situation with ROI usage.

If BITASK goes through Village pump etc (say per suggestions above by Suntag #Consensus) they would not be impressed by the current state of the BI article (which we've wisely ignored thus far at BITASK - keeping it to BI talk), and would probably ask questions about the future at Ireland too once it's brought up. Certainly MOS is the ultimate home for any guidelines - but it might need to be extended (WP:UKNATIONALS is not yet fully part of MOS for example, and people like Sony Youth agrees that it needed to have Ireland etc in the title - 'British Islands and Ireland' maybe? It's MOS biogs-only though - though the side-bar is culture-based). I'll give you more of my thoughts tomorrow). I think with excellent consensus we can be bold with these things - without it we need to go through the required routes. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the '#Consensus' link - Suntag was refering to WP:IDTF, but it was good general advice. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I didn't get around to working on WP:IDTF this weekend. I would be very happy to work with whoever is interested on WP:IDTF, and I'm relatively familiar with the editors you've mentioned. More importantly, I've time to work on this. --HighKing (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Matt, thank you. I appreciate greatly that you took the time to write that. --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's alright, sometimes you just have to go over things. I think a lot of admins dip in an out of the BI issue - I don't think any of them have been watching it over the whole year. I'm preparing a Wikialert against Wotapalaver - my main grievance with him is he keeps forcing me to reiterate myself! There is a limit, and his relentless misrepresentation of my position has finally got too much. I'm not going to advance any proposals on the BI article with him carrying on like this. A professional BI article will help all of us in the long run - it will all get sorted out if we stick at it. I'd rather step aside from the Irish taskforce though - it's the time like you say, and I want to concentrate on the main BI article. For reference I have plenty of 'Ireland' suggestions on my Talk page if anyone wants to refer to them.

Scolaire was interested in someone above who offered himself as a mediator - perhaps you could discuss him with Scolaire? I butted in and suggested we wait for more experience, but it might be better just to get it going, and the guy could be fine.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)