User talk:Matt Lewis/Archive 7

Why oppose an outline on Wales?
Why have you opposed posting an outline of the changes that other editors have asked you to post? We are not averse to changes but you are making unilateral decisions which may be objectionable resulting in edit wars and revisions. Please take the time to cooperate with other editors to avoid misunderstandings. Drachenfyre (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to post on Talk every bit of prose I write for approval - but the problem with moving sections is that they need to be pictured in situe (and I did say I'd go ahead and do this). I realise the article is semi-protected and people are probably touchy. You can always put my changes back - I won't revert if you do. I just wanted people to have a chance to see what can be done. I'm going to do the research on other countries - I'm sure its just the English and US ones that are so rigid with formulaic sections (I've found a number that veer away now - especially over Etymology) --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets start anew, to make the page better.Drachenfyre (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wales talk archived
I had thought that the 'older' conversations (imo) seemed to have ran their corse, and given that we (all of us) were about to embark on a page rewrite, I felt that we needed a clean page to discuss upcoming changes. No disrespect intended here, was just clearing up space. Shall I repost the information? I do not mind doing that, was attempting to be proactive with our upcoming discussions was all.

Have you previewed my submission for an outline?Drachenfyre (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think putting it back is best, as some were only days old (so we can't be certain) and the page isn't particulaly long yet. I had a hunch you were doing what you say - but surely you see the irony for me though? I did see your lengthened outline - but havent had time to study it yet.


 * I can bend on 'Etymology' (though I don't see why it's so important that it comes first, when many other articles don't have it first - or even at all in section form, or have it within a sub-article) but I'd like us to remove what I see as a slight but firm 'union-bias' out of the article (the weight towards highlighting words like Principality). For me it's all about Wales as a living country first and foremost. Wales is a living and developing country - not a note in history. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put my above reply in Wales Talk as we are discussing it there too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ive replied as well on the Talk:Wales. But I did wish for you to understand my perspective. As an American my point of view is of no real consequence for Wales.... but I sympathize with an independence of Wales, and prehaps with a restored 'Welsh prince of Wales' as Saunders Lewis and others have. But that is the romantic historian in meDrachenfyre (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a realist - the idea of princeship is a bit of a nonsense to me I’m afraid. I’m very Welsh, but have always thought Britain in the modern age works (excepting NI). It’s certainly been too London-centric over the years, and has been over-controlled by a right-wing govt lately – but the world will be the worse without it (though it might not seem that way looking at the news). The anglo-celtic symbiosis (that had to happen historically) has given the world a great deal. I have the ability and the right to feel both Welsh and British (and simply a human too – my real calling in life). When I look at the big picture of the life around me (esp culturally) - it's simply British. It's not European - it's certainly Welsh on an immediate level, but over that it is simply and clearly British - and I don't wish to remove that element (though I do want more Assembly power). --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Duely noted my friend :) . I do have great respect for the 'anglo-celtic symbiosis', as you mention, and recognize the contrabutions that, that interchange between cultures have produced. Weather Scotland and Wales become independent or not, in this day and age, I think there will continue to be an interchange of ideas and culture, a working together, so it becomes somewhat of a mute point. Except when one considers the self-determination of a people (witness Kosovo). I look forward to working with you on the Wales page. I think our joint goal is to create a professional page that distinguishes Wales ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On a side note, until the BBC Wales redid their home page, there was a section called BBC Wales News, and BBC Wales Sport. on the BBC Scotland homepage you still see BBC Scottish News and BBC Scottish Sports. After the BBC Wales homepage redid their page, they dropped the 'Wales' part of the News and Sports page.... it took me a minute to realize that they still linked to Welsh news and sport. Now it simply reads BBC News, and BBC Sports on the BBC Wales homepage. Have you noticed this? As someone involved in the media I thought you might have. I have sent a 'complaint' hoping that it was a simple oversight... and showed them the BBC Scottish news... but they simply responded they will pass the information along. What are your thoughts on that? I mean... is it not confusing not to have the 'Wales' as part of the title for news coverage of Wales interest? ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

UK MP's Voting record
The information is not essential or even necessary to the article at all. The fact that an Mp has voted a certain way is part of their job. If the person broke ranks and helped cause a government defeat then that is note worthy. However wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and as such should not start down the slope of including how every single MP votes and every signal issue the article is about the person not their voting habits.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Engage in discussion and do not threaten me with being reported you have done exactly the same as whet i have done. Engage in discussion of the issue rather the pushing your own view by continuous reverting and failure to engage in discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have discussed this repeatedly on Talk:David_Lammy - it is no use pretending I haven't. I have merely protected the article - it is you who have persisted with your change. I'm not threatening - I'm acting. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion you are being disruptive by preventing the improvement of the articles. I am simply trying to prevent spurious information form being mindlessly disseminated.--Lucy-marie (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Copying and pasting material from other websites is not acceptable. Facts are public domain.  The presentation of those facts (ie, the exact same issues in the exact same order and nearly the exact same wording) is copyrightable. Please do not re-add it unless you write it in your own words.  My suggestion for avoiding plagiarism is that you don't even have the source website up when you write it - write whatever it is you want to write, then go back and correct spelling/facts/whatever based on the source.  That way, you completely avoid any possibility of copying.  --B (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This wasn't actually "copy/pasted" - see my NOTE below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. It wasn't me who put them up (though I strongly support their inclusion) - so I wasn't aware they were directly 'copied and pasted'! I will rearrange the order and slightly re-word them (which should be enough, given these are freely-available statistics). Thanks for the advice. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest going much further than that. Slightly rewording is still a derivative work.  I would suggest incorporating facts from other sources (for example, issues mentioned on other websites) or presenting a select group of key issues along with examples.  You could write something like this:

Lammy is a strong supporter of XYZ, for which he co-sponsored the XYZ Reform Act of 2002.[1] He voted against ABC both times it came up and told supporters, "ABC is an unmitigated disaster for our country."[2] He is most known for his moderate position on 123, where he brokered the 123 Compromise Act of 2005, a bipartisan resolution that ended 123 abuse.[3]
 * This presentation is more useful to the reader and unquestionably not plagiarism. --B (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps as a summary too? theyworkforyou.com is about free public information, and is a semi-WIki that has free licences within it - I don't think there was actually a copyright problem here anyway!! Lucymarie has been caught seriously sock-puppeting before - I'll have to go my own way (ie back to consensus), sorry - no bad faith intended honestly, but I'm very serious about this information being included. These list have been on Wikipedia for a while - it is just not fair that one person can go from article to article removing them. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing on their website that I can find that makes their content available under the GFDL. "All rights reserved" is the default copyright and even if the rights holder does not explicitly claim copyright, it is automatically conferred when they produce a creative work.  Consensus cannot override copyright law.  The underlying facts are public domain.  The presentation of those facts is copyrighted work.   A test for determining whether or not your wording is a copyright violation is whether or not a person off of the street, when handed both versions, would conclude that one was derived from the other. If you include facts from other sources or completely rewrite it from scratch then you are good. --B (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The licence I saw was actually to do with adding code, but I got the impression that the whole sight was like that. I didn't have the time to fully check (I couldn't find anything either way to do with text). I do fully accept though that we must always err on the side of caution on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and leave the past where it belongs in the past.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt Lewis, it seems clear to me that you had violated WP:3RR at the David Lammy page. In future please spend more time discussing and trying to understand other editors' positions and reach compromise, and less time reverting. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC) (striking out the rest of the comment. 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
 * (inserted later while striking out the above comment) I'm sorry. I hadn't read the whole discussion at the noticeboard before posting that. It was unnecessary and repetitive for me to post that, since EdJohnston had already posted a similar opinion on the noticeboard and you had had an opportunity to see that when you posted there afterward, so there was no need for me to post here to make sure you were aware of it. Besides, there may be differing opinions as to whether there was a violation or not. --Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did discuss it in Talk and always do, thanks (over half my edits are discussion). Are you running for admin or something? I don't appreciate your passing-by comment here, or on the 3RR page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry to bother you. Maybe I should have worded my comment more diplomatically.  One reason I posted was that I thought you might not have been aware that you'd violated 3RR.  Some people misunderstand how the rules work in various ways.  I thought it would be good to let you know so you could avoid violations in future.  I'm not an admin.  I've been posting on the 3RR page and related talk pages etc. since March 20.  As far as I know you're the first person who's complained about it.  Non-admins regularly warn other users about 3RR violations, although usually it's with regard to pages they're involved in editing.  I've seen it explicitly stated that non-admins are welcome to post opinions at WP:AN/I, (where I also post from time to time), and I believe the same applies to WP:AN/3RR.


 * If I'd read all your comments on the 3RR page first, I probably would have left you alone. Maybe the amount of time you spend discussing things is perfectly fine, and it's only the reverting that needed to diminish.  I'm not exactly "passing by"; I'm actively and systematically  helping enforce the WP:3RR policy via the noticeboard.  One of the things I do, for example, is add information to incomplete reports.  Sorry, but I don't think warnings necessarily have to be appreciated by the recipient to be effective as part of the enforcement process, though as I said I could have worded it more diplomatically. I've struck out the second sentence. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, thanks. Sometimes I do get a little paranoid when people seem to 'pop up', but I can see you're a contributor to the 3RR pages now. I've apologised on the 3RR page for filing the report, as I clearly 'jumped the gun' and shouldn't have gone through the (quite laborious!) task. I admit I didn't properly consider my own reverts, as I was replacing old text and felt very righteous about it (which by the way wasn't 'copied and pasted' after all - it was clearly edited by whoever originally put it in...). As it happens, it's the first time I've gone so far as to report someone on Wikipedia. I felt that strongly about it - and it's over a number of articles, so we'll have to sort it out (clearly through Talk). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's OK. We're all just trying to make the encyclopedia the best we can, each in our own way.  Maybe when I post warnings I should mention that I help out at 3RR so people won't wonder where I suddenly appeared from!  I run into the same copyright problem at Simple English Wikiquote.  Even though the actual quotes of someone from long ago may not be copyrighted, a collection of their quotes is still copyrighted, because of the work that went into collecting the quotes, and even if we select some from the collection, it can still be considered copyrighted -- unless maybe it's just a small number like two or three quotes.  I don't think anyone knows what the exact cutoff number is; it may depend on context. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. When I attempt at putting back a non-arguable version (regarding copyright at least - probably tomorrow now) I'll look for some other major votes to add to it. If I can't find any I'll try and write an additional paragraph, explaining what "key" entails - or why they are considered important - giving citations regarding that too, which should help. I probably should do that anyway. I'm hoping that when they are dated they will all be in a different order too - but with my luck, dating them will actually keep them in the same order! It is surely extreme to have to remove some of the votes - Trident maybe? The smoking ban?. It's like a "one-off - first come first serve" rule for the displaying of public information! I believe some formatting will do the trick. Thinking about it - extra information could be whether there was actualy a whip or not (there aren't always whips attached to votes). Maybe a table perhaps... I'll have a think.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. It seems kindof unjust to not be allowed to use information like that.  However, that's the way it is, apparently.  Rhetorical question: Who decided that these particular votes are "key"?   Maybe there are some other votes that a different person compiling the list would have included.  Try not to think in terms of reformatting.  It's the basic information itself that's copyrighted; changing the format doesn't really help.  Maybe the same information is also available on a government website or something, with different copyright status: i.e. a more complete list of votes from which you could pull out key ones based on news articles or something.  (Sorry if that comment is off the mark.  I haven't looked closely at the material you're working with.)  Thanks for the effort you've already put into trying to keep the information in the article: a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for striking out your comment at 3RR. I appreciate it. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE on copyright and "copy and paste":

I took User:B's word that David Lammy's voting record was "copied and pasted" - it actually did appear to be on first glance, but was clearly edited:


 * Compare this: the David Lammy diff to this: the Theyworkforyou.com "David Lammy" page.

The data was clearly intentionally edited by whoever introduced it - all the "strongly"'s and "moderately"'s were removed. I will add dates to each of the votes, and swap the use of bold for caps, so there can be absolutely no copyright issues over keeping this information in all the MP's articles. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wales
I am absenting myself from contributing from the Wales artical, as quite clearly acromonious editors, those that almost never ever contribute to or visit the Wales page, are now migrating here to enforce their own 'agenda'. The infobox border, the maps, the outline, the infobox picture, I know what shall follow. It is funny because NONE of these editors contribute to Wales... lol. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I been worrying a little since I saw the 'notice' for the British Isles debate. At some point I'll make a prose edit (I'm always juggling what I want to do and my time)- please comment when I do. Maybe you need to focus on another article if it's getting you down. I'll keep some colour in if it's removed - maybe a lighter red. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

colored debate
Here is the local for the debate for the use of a colored infor box border and title header. Please visit Template talk:Infobox Country on Wikipedia to provide arguments why countries should have these styalistic distinctions. Editor MJCdetroit may be sympathetic to our cause only if we reach a consensus. He has already reverted back the Wales page, which I have also reverted. If we provide a solid argument that adding colored borders and title headers does not jeoperdize the consistant display of information within the info box, prehaps we can build further consensus. If you know anyone who may share our views on this please have them also comment here. So far no one in the wider community other the MJCdetroit and Azra have voiced a position, the absence of this may work in our favor here. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC) My email address is dc_llewellyn@yahoo.com


 * See comment below. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Moderation call
Hello Matt! Per the borders, I have left this notice on various bords and on other contributers I know here to widen the debate some. As you can see, if the consensus for the Wales community is that they do not wish to have a distincitive border and title header, I shall withdrawl my advocacy for it. But, I believe there will be others who do think it is a positive change, and have invited them to contribute to the debate

Greetings Wales community! We need your Voice! We need mediation and impute from the wider community who regularily contribute to articals of Wales interest. At issue is the use of a distinctive border around the country info box, as well title bar. The issue seems to have become a crusade against Wales by certin editors, who have almost never contributed to and practically never visit (by their own admission) the Wales page. I do not tust the motives of the editor, who seems to be stalking my edits and reverting them purposefully. This editor even dismisses the colors of Wales red and green saying that Wales does not have any official colors! (quote: "I imagine that this use of "national colours" (of which Wales has none by custom or tradition)...", Unfortunatly, I must deal with these cyber bullying tactics if I am to contribute here. However, I implore the Wales commmunity to weigh in on the topic of allowing info box borders and title headers. Please submit views on Template talk:Infobox Country and talk:Wales. If the wider Wales community decides not to support a border and title header color in the colors of Wales then I will withdrawal from this position. However, I and other editors do feel it makes the Wales page far more distinctive. Sincerly, David Llewellyn ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll read up on this when I've got time, but I don't know how much support I can give - I've got a backlog of WP stuff I've started, and although I think finding the right coloured and styled border would be good, some of the other stuff is more demanding. I'll try and put in the odd comment. I fiddled around with it myself and managed to get a two coloured border, which gave it some relief (lighter on the outside)- I couldn't replicate it though. I don't have time to research the code. The more natural it looks on the page, the better the case, though there may always be opposition here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542
Thanks for your message. I appreciate that it must be frustrating when the article is fully-protected, but blocking for 3RR wouldn't solve the long-term disagreement: only discussion can help, and at least that's happening. It's only for a couple of days. As to your edit-protected request, I'm happy to make a change but I've left a question or two about the wording, as you'll see. Regards, BencherliteTalk 09:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "(ec) As you will have noticed, I have fully-protected the article on the Wrong Version to stop the edit-warring getting even more out of hand, lest 3RR blocks start getting handed out. Any other admin may feel free to revert to semi-protection (if still appropriate) if there is a measure of agreement here before the protection expires.  BencherliteTalk 21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)"


 * Sorry Bencherlite, but I have to be firm on this as I need Wikipedia's rules to make sense. As a lawyer I hope you understand this. 3RR keeps the page alive and deals with the warring editors. You don't have to immediately "block" anyone - you can strongly warn them on their Talk pages first, and you simply have not done this. The article must come first - so we don't lock it over basic 2-person edit wars in the info-box!. The 3RR process exists to deal with editors so the article can remain alive - why have you ignored this standard rule and locked the article? To encourage consensus? You cannot use a page-lock to force a consensus between 2 editors! What if you don't get the form of consensus you have said you still need to see? They are not obliged to find it, and sometimes people are happy with a lock - something I don't think you have considered at all (you quoted the foolish and provocative Wrong Version - but what about "The right version"? Apply some logic here). I had nothing to do with this edit war over the status of the Welsh language. Please remove the lock or I'll have to find an admin who will (which I think is an unfair position for me to be in) - I simply cannot see how it is justified at all. Wikipedia would simply grind to a halt if all admins did this!


 * If it is carried on, in lawyer-speak - can you supply me with a precedence on Wikipedia for this approach, as it seems clear to me that the lock is against Wikipedia principles. I also feel you have been too involved in the Talk by offering encouragement in directions. IMO, you should be dispassionate and rule-abiding - and not suddenly 'stop all play' for 3 days to try and broker a deal. You are not a school teacher either: just an admin. Unfortunately the appeasing "it's only for a couple of days" doesn't work in my life - I have had the time and inclination to edit now. And what if they (and you) do all this again? Is this how things are to go on? I'm wondering if this why the article has been so stagnant for so long. I have a life, a job and an article I want to edit - I'm really not happy here. The Wales article has been static for a long time and it is finally seeing some movement - "frustrating" is too weak a word for me now: I'm afraid the words are "puzzlement", "put out", "worried" and "increasingly annoyed". --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My protection of Wales is in accordance with Protection policy. If you disagree, request unprotection at WP:RFPP.
 * Linking to the Wrong Version is a frequent habit of many admins; it is not meant to be provocative, merely an attempt to head-off the frequent "Why did you protect that ersion instead of the right version?"
 * The protection has brought in a number of other editors to the discussion. Suggestions are being made, and viewpoints expressed, rather than edit-warring and sniping in edit summaries. I do not think that it is worth lifting the protection early, otherwise the underlying problem will remain unresolved.
 * I strongly disagree that I am taking sides in the dispute.
 * I fully understand that protection of the article is frustrating for you. Again, if you can't wait until the protection expires, request unprotection at WP:RFPP.
 * Regards, BencherliteTalk 14:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'll ask for review at WP:AN, for transparency. BencherliteTalk 14:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard. BencherliteTalk 14:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gozitancrabz (heading changed as user banned).
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When am I supposed to have done that, and who are you? You have neither shown any evidence nor signed! Honestly! (Oh you've signed now(!) - can you perhaps show me the problem?--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You did it here, where you edited my own comments of the quotes that I had left, making it appear I was arguing for the other side. I have assumed good faith, which is why I only gave you a level 2 warning, so do not worry about it, but if you repeat it again, another, higher level warning may be given (not neccessarily by me), and eventually, a block. As it stands, you are in no trouble, but as policy, I must give you a warning to inform you. I was considering a level 1 warning, but you are not a new user; just don't do it again. :) cheers. oh, and by the way, i have moved some of the comments which you wrote which broke the manual of style, into a list on their own; i have not deleted those, but I have removed the comments where you reworded what I wrote. Gozitancrabz (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as ambiguous 'level 1' or 2 warnings in my book. If you want to complain, complain - but it sounds like a page corruption to me. Manual of style is just a guideline - you cannot edit my comments so they are in line with it, or your interpretation of it. It sound like you've been moving and editing my own comments - in which case I'll revert them back to where they were, and correct the whatever mistake I may have made. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not revert again; you have modified my comments - something which you are not allowed to do. Revert again and not only will I give you another warning and talk to an admin about a temporary block, but I shall go to the ANI and report a revert war. Please stop now. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reversion has been reverted. I shall reorder the points again for you, but i will NOT accept the page to be reverted, as this puts in all the places where you have modified the actual wording, content, and meaning of what I wrote. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are now back in, although indented from mine to avoid confusion. Please stick to the MOS with regards to this next time. Also, do NOT modify what people have written again. You say there is nothing referencing our claims - go check the last few comments under the section; Wikipeire has explained where in the source the UN states it, and there are some other sources given by me too, quoted from higher up the page on another discussion. And also, I don't have an oppinion either way on how "offended" you are. This is wikipedia, a place for facts, not for propaganda. Gozitancrabz (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wales as a country is propaganda? - you really are building a poor picture of yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted this comment on your talk page (I may as well copy it here):

''I've had to revert your edits to my comments - sorry, but I've done you favour - you'll get in trouble moving other editors comments like that. Many people insert comments in between bullet points (I've had it done to me by Wikipedias so-called one-time "number 2" once!) MOS may not recommend it - but MOS is a guideline, not a licence to re-edit another editor. In my opinion no list of bullets like your should just be allowed to stand without point-by-point questions asked! You laid on a totally misleading picture. Please tell me where the mistake you spoke of lies, so I can help to rectify it. I don't have the time to pick apart all the edits you made to my text.''

''You also have to understand too that your assertion that Wales is a Principality and not a real country is offensive to me, and millions of others of my Welsh countrymen! (and pretty much almost everyone else I'm sure). The 'Principality' issue is a separate one to Wales being a constituent country of the United Kingdom (which is internationally the collective 'country' for obvious legal reasons). You keep saying you ahave a 'BBC reference' saying Wales isn't a country (although BBC Wales says it is every day!) - but I haven't seen it yet!''

I will have to revert again if any of my text remains changed, as these are my comments - I don't think it counts as 3RR in my case if I'm just reinstating my Talk. Please tell me where the confusion issue is and we can deal with it, yes? I'll await to see what you do. Remember - don't fiddle with my text again without asking! And not too many 'inbetween' re-writes of your own I would suggest (for your credibility, you understand!) And whatever mishap arose - 'warning' me here (and others about me on the Talk page) that I have "modified the actual wording, content, and meaning of what (you) wrote" simply must be an exaggeration - I couldn't have accidentally done all that surely? (and you would be wise NOT to suggest anything corrupting I may have done was deliberate).

(I notice you have made a change - I'll have a look - but I can't waste hours dissecting it (I simply don;t have the time)- I'll have to simpy revert if I see my tTalk messed up.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would count as a 3 revert rule violation, yes. Forcing the view that there is no "mixed oppinion" about Wales being a country is propaganda, when there are clearly now plently of official sources on the page which suggest it is not. And I will "fiddle with your text" as much as need be if ever you decide to reword mine again and in the process, change the entire meaning. I have replaced the parts that did not effect my writing, but where I was listing the quotes, at the top, you, for some reason, thought it OK to reword the titles of the quotes, and the commentary afterwards, and that is not even going into the fact that you "striked" certain parts of my text, which you are in no eligible position to do. Just accept your warning and learn for next time. Cheers. Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is 3RR if I'm replacing my own Talk. Do you understand what colons signify? Maybe I missed signing a point and you are confused with the line indents? I can't make any sense of your "changed my heading" comments: it's a bloody mess now though! The strikes were through clear misrepresentations - you are simply making misrepresenting statements (I'm putting it politely) - and that is totally wrong of you (just unstrike them and leave my text alone). In fact, I've not encountered another editor quite like you: you keep saying "I'm tired of repeating that x has been proved to be y" without showing any proof that x=y at all. And over the existence of a country too! You have not one shred of evidence saying that Wales is not a country - but it's the continual and inciting line you just keep repeating. You must expect a firm response if you go about like this!--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are replacing my talk with your "modifed version" that still breaks it. And have you even bothered checking the latest source additions to the section? two very official ones, which are not disputable, and that is in addition to the already existing BBC ones we have given. Goodnight. Adios! Gozitancrabz (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Two of them prove nothing and one (which seems to) you have suddenly lucked on - so I'm going to give it a go!


 * Anyway - adios! glad your gone. the UN Principality-over-country quote (literally the ONLY EXAMPLE you've come across after all the protracted debate) does not mean Wales is not a country: it just has Wales listed under 'Principality' rather than 'country'. There is debate on whether a Principality is a country too - and Wales is clear proof that it can be. I'm looking for a clear UN quote about this. So don't get too excited, eh?


 * Also - you have removed at least one paragraph of mine in all your smokescreen edits (one where I pointed out an embarrassing mistake of yours - over the "BBC one" you mention above). Hmmm - now shall I report you? You certainly deserve it. It's the not the thing to do you see pal, removing people comments from Talk pages. (esp after pretending someone else has done it to clear the way - and I have found NO evidence of me making any error at all!!!) You have lucked on the UN quote. And honestly - were would you be without it - the way you have been behaving? No wonder you are suddenly so cocky! I bet you are jumping around your bedroom! I grew up in the country in question though - so will find my best gritty smile and persevere. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * oh, are you denying that you edited my comments? And if I removed one of your comments, I appologize, and by all means, put it back (presuming you are not talking about the point where you modified my comment), and haha, no, you are not able to "report" me for that, as I made an error while trying to correct a far greater offence that you made. Report by all means if you want. I can give you the link if you want, but I can assure you things will not swing your way. Oh, and another point, please read this before you next leave a comment to me. :) Cheers. Oh, and by the way, just to let you know, I am now discussing inviting the mediation cable onto the Wales article because you are refusing to accept the UN quote, amongst others. Regards. Gozitancrabz (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you just say "haha"? I've spent a number of hours with you now and I'm seriously questioning my wisdom. You have never shown me what offense I originally made in Talk that 'forced you' to go on an totally non-policy reverting/moving/edit/revision spree - I can see none. I've started a new section on the UN quote - we can deal with it there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up
Just thought I'd give you a heads up Matt. Take a look at the Scotland talk page under the heading: abitrary break. You will see that a certain editor is being accused of sockpupperty. And don't worry and if you don't mind me saying, keep calm.You have all the facts in your favour. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'm taking a break actually. Don't know how long - I've actually let myself get pretty wound up (stupid I know, and pretty obvious too - I appreciate your suggestion to keep calm) and I've let a few things go 'off-line' (not least wasting my own free time arguing the existence of my own country! It's the repetition that's got to me!) You are right - the facts are obviously with us. I'm just aware that internationally Wales isn;t all that well known. I'll have a peek at Scotland before I sign off, and come back refreshed I'm sure.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gozitancrabz personal headings
And yes, I have visited Wales a lot with my parents thanks very much. It was a pretty region; shame about the weather Gozitancrabz (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Troll. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt we could all be feeding a troll so I suggest we back off a bit and let them shoot themselves (unless they reverse out evidence). See here  Suspected sock puppets/Iamandrewrice (2nd) --Snowded (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Gozitancrabz has been banned as a sock of the banned sock user Iamandrewrice. Looks like I took my short break at the right time - we were simply being given the runaround, and everything I wrote probably just made things worse. The other one, Wikipeire, has been blocked for socks himself, so gets no respect from me: he/she could be anyone. The only issue now on this matter is whether we revise where we have "Principality". I favour simply keeping it in the last parag, which has the room to place it in it's historical context and mention the Prince of Wales too. It's a last parag thing, not a first parag one. It needs the room to be qualified too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Matt, theres no reason not to mention principality but certainly not in the first paragraph. As a Scot maybe thats why I feel I had to back you up, If you have discussions on the same subject give me a shout! --Jack forbes (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it would ever go quite like that again, but thanks. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The truth always comes out Matt. Remember that! --Jack forbes (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as people are on the case! It's certainly something I will be more diligent about. Nothing wrong with AGF in comments, and checking peoples history too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pondle - on the EU parag in Wales Intro
Hi. I'm busy for the moment, but will try and explain myself again here after lunch. (in an hour and a half or so). I didn't want to go through it again in Wales Talk right now - hope you don't mind me doing it here. You might want to put your views down first? The parag isn't finished by any means. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I think the line in the intro about Wales having more 'independent' relations with the European Union since devolution is misleading - foreign policy remains a reserved matter outside the Assembly's competence. Hence the Concordat on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues stating that "relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State." Another Concordat on International Relations states that "The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs... has overall responsibility for concluding treaties and other international agreements on behalf of the United Kingdom, ensuring compliance with the United Kingdom’s EU and other international obligations". It's also important to note that Wales isn't independently represented on any of the key European bodies, e.g. the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission or the European Court of Justice. The only changes that I can see occuring since devolution is WAG representation on the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the EU (UKRep), and Wales being represented on the EU's Committee of the Regions and Economic and Social Committee - although these just seem to involve local councillors I tried to clarify the matter by editing the Politics of Wales article accordingly. Pondle (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, and not being party to removing the text - this is clearly about getting the paragraph right. My intention in writing it was to show how the Assembly benefits Wales by being a place that important foreign bodies can liaise directly with (in a nutshell). The question is - has the EU been in any way liaising directly with the Assembly (and vice versa) to a greater extent than it directly did with the Welsh Office (assuming that it did then, and does now)?


 * RE the Concordat parag: As all foreign policy issues are non-devolved, relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State. However, the UK Government wishes to involve the Assembly Cabinet as directly and fully as possible in decision making on EU matters which touch on devolved areas (including non-devolved matters which impact on devolved areas and non-devolved matters which will have a distinctive impact of importance to Wales). In general, it is expected that consultation, the exchange of information and the conventions on notifications to EU bodies will continue in similar circumstances to the arrangements in place prior to devolution.


 * The line you pointed out: "relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom, as Member State" deals with "responsibiliy" in a certain sense, imo: it is basically saying that the buck has to lie with the UK as the member state, and the wider important decisions are made centrally: it doesn't say to me that the WA and EU do not work together.


 * I think the Intro needs to cover where Wales stands re the EU whatever that entails - it could a good picture of what Wales means over all. We could mention the EU Office in Wales (set up 1976), the WA EU Office in Brussels [] (which is part of the European and External Affairs Division, and the fact that in Wales people vote to elect both AMs and MPs (as part of the general Assembly info). I think we can get it right in a reasonably short parag.


 * Other links: The Welsh European Funding Office - allows businesses to access grants online, Would this go via Brussels/Wales?,


 * To allay concerns that Wales might be seen as being individually represented on the "key bodies" we could cover this with something like: "Although the key European bodies, such as the European Council, are represented by the UK (as the EU member state), Wales...". --Matt Lewis (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Matt,


 * The EU office in Wales isn't really a big deal. Yes, it's something that the devolved administrations have that the English regions don't, but it only has 5 staff - one is a PA, four are just press/information officers. Its main duty is to keep the Welsh public informed about the EU - they have no substantive policy role.
 * WEFO manages the European Structural Funds programme in Wales - it's now a part of WAG rather than a separate quango. The Welsh Office managed structural funds in Wales before 1999, so there's not really been much change in management arrangements since devolution. The biggest recent change is that from 2000 onwards, West Wales and the Valleys has qualified for Objective 1 funds The UK retains a common policy position on structural funds . However, there are occasions when WAG makes representations direct to the European Commission
 * Yes, there is the WAG EU office - it is "part of the UKRep family" but accountable to the Assembly. It's worth a mention somewhere - I'm not convinced that it's important enough for the Intro though.
 * The only intergovernmental links that the External Affairs division at WAG has delivered seem to be "Memoranda of Understanding with Catalunya, Brittany, New South Wales, Chubut (Patagonia), Baden-Wurttemberg, Silesia (Poland), Latvia, and Chongqing (China)" (i.e. links with other sub-national regions). Aside from that they organise visits etc. Pondle (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Idea for compromise - how does this grab you? Bit long-winded but I think it would meet both our requirements. "Wales is a constituency of the European Parliament. Relations between Wales and the European Union are conducted through the UK Government as UK foreign policy is a reserved matter. However, Welsh Assembly Government ministers and officials may participate in EU Council meetings as part of the British delegation, and can interact directly with the European Commission." Pondle (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
Hello Matt, I have explained the change I made on the Wales infobx at the talk page. --Jack forbes (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Matt, As I've explained to Snowdon I have changed the infobox again. If you would like to check it again I would appreciate it. I did not put the colons in but as I feel I'm already flying by the skin of my teeth I thougt maybe someone else could put them in. Thanks. --Jack forbes (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Constituent country or country
Hi, I don't want change just for changes sake. I really believe the change to country would improve the article. It's very similar to the argument you had with the sockpuppet and the other editor I won't mention. Their argument was that Principality should be used as soon as possible in the first paragraph. You, quite rightly, told them that principality was very rarely if at all used in Wales. This is the exact same argument I have for using country rather than constituent country in the first paragraph. As I said on the talk page, who says, Wales, it's a beautiful constituent country! I hope you now understand the reasoning behind my proposal. --Jack forbes (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer Constituent country for all 4 UK sub-divisions. But alas, my hopes of consistancy on those articles, have evaporated. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, even for NI, which is clearly a created country in my eyes. I wouldn't involve myself on either side of an edit-exchange on this though - as long as the full-length title of the UK is kept (which I favour for the UK country articles, but wouldn't presume to change on any of the others). I'm still not sure of the reasoning, unless the word 'constituent' bothers them on a nationalist level. Ultimately though this edit makes little odds, unless it leads to an edit war - which with Wales can mean the article getting locked. I might be advised to go to lastminute.com if that happened - to somewhere very relaxing..--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wales: destination of the intro pipe
I've decided to reply to all messages on my own talk page but that was after I got yours so I replicate the reply here: I would get the merge agreed then the changes will be automatic and not excite comment. Good news on getting the Constituent Countries stuff out by the way. I sense a unionist or anti-nationalist (they seem to be different groups) backlash building however. --Snowded (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK - replying in your talk. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed that you've changed the pipe link of "parts of" in the Wales article. Whilst I am sure it will end up being changed to that, assuming no big upsets in the poll going on, I do think this is a bit premature, as one of the main factors that led to the pipe going to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom was the presence of the table which provided numerous reliable sources for the different terms that could be used, and showed the dominance of "country" as the descriptor for most if not all of the bits of the United Kingdom. I really think it should be reverted until the change is made, and this is what I was referring to when I said that changes should be made one step at a time.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I discussed it with Snowded (as another long standing Welsh editor) first, and thought it was worth doing. The logic is that I wanted to do it, and thought it was best for the article. In waiting I felt we were creating a kind of unecessary 'bureaucratic stretch'. If it's reverted I'll leave it until after the poll. As the main information is already in the 'Countries of' article, I don't personally see the poll as a reason to wait. The poll is more about whether related information should be split between two articles as far as I'm concerned: countries of the United Kingdom is a common name. The google search is full of gov sites.


 * Also - one step at a time, yes. But what order? And how many know about this? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it was specifically pointing to Subdivisions of the United Kingdom as a result of the informal mediation carried out by Keeper76, and one of the main reasons he provided was the presence of the table in the article. It was argued about and accepted after some discussions and I understood that it may well not be a good idea to change too much for a little while (and certainly not change something specifically mentioned in the informal mediation without a wider discussion.) I guess a useful stop-gap solution that would avoid any kind of reversion exchange might bbe to add the table to the Countries of the United Kingdom article straightaway, and I'll do that. It will help lessen any problems if they arise over the changed piped link.  DDStretch    (talk)  16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be good. By the way, Keeper76 recommended the never-ideal "Subdivisions" pipe-link himself (nobody else seemed to know about it!) but I think he was brought in to mediate over the 'country/constituent country' argument, not specifically any link destination. I wasn't originally party to calling him (I came in towards the end), but the wording I have kept out of respect for the consensus found. (IMO, 'of' is now simpler than 'that is part of').


 * The two great benefits of the 'Keeper76 poll' was that a consensus came out of it, and 'country' was accepted as the initial definition, followed by a qualifier that could be piped: the best destination for the pipe was less of an debated issue (though it certainly needs to be agreed on). Necessary work then took place on Subdivisions (it was never ideal)... which naturally lead us to here.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I called in Keeper76, and the table was both my idea as was placing it in the Subdivisions of the United Kingdom, as, at the time, it seemed to fit there given the other stuff in the article at the time. I think it would be better off now in Countries of the United Kingdom, anyway.  DDStretch    (talk)  17:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Principality and civility
Firstly, I'd invite you to be a lot more civil and to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, per wp policy. Secondly, where is Wales a principality of? Sources would help. Please reply here. Verbal  chat  09:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Originally of itself - the Welsh princes. Why don't you read it? The Royal family (who hold the courtesy title) are the royal family of the UK - not "England", their lineage is 'British' too (Tudor then Stuart, which aided the English/Welsh then Scottish unification and the creation of Britain) - but they don't have the original Welsh line/connection. And they are British.


 * If you are so clueless about the UK and Wales, how come you've twice made this edit? You can't blame me for being uncivil- it was a crazy thing to do twice (and not clever once). You clearly haven't read the archives, the article, that background or anything. What you don't tell a Welshman (or Scotsman etc) is that he/she owned by the English. You wouldn't even say that to a English royalist re the monarchy - the monarchy are British, and the Countries of the United Kingdom represent an equal union. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right that I didn't read the archives. Is that so bad? I don't think it warrants being called a vandal. Is your contention that Wales is no longer a principality, or that it is only a historical principaity? I don't dispute most of your statements, although I think they are a little strong, and would ask you not to put words in my mouth or make straw men arguments extrapolating from my editing. I thought the "largest" addition was interesting and added to the article. I hope my other small copy edits are ok with you. Verbal   chat  09:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As I just said in your Talk - I did get a very bad impression of you, esp as you changed my heading on you talk to "Wales is a principality of England"! That was a moments trolling at least - anyone would fear the worse when they saw that. You now have it as "is/isn't" - I'll tell you again that it isn't!


 * The other copy edit was not quite Kings English, so to speak. As it's a 'British English' article, I'm a bit snotty about the grammar. Other than that it was fine (but I reverted it as the meaning is no different and the old one was better). --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another editor complaining about Matt Lewis' incivility
Your behavior violates WP rules of civility, no personal attacks, and assumption of good faith. Act in a more civil manner, immediately. Also, I was educated at the London School of Economics, and I do know a thing or two about Wales. However, I was delighted to find yet another uninformed, pathetic personal attack on your personal talk page. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Where have I been personal to you? You are just trying to get me into trouble. Hopefully people can see that - but you never know do you?--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would I care about getting you into trouble? You called me stupid in multiple ways, in multiple places, for no good reason, and generally acted boorish and cruel. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest Wales intro edits
Hi Matt, re: the peacock term(s) in the Wales intro - I really do think that we should strive to be objective and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:PCK, WP:V and all that. If "Gerald of Wales described the Welsh landscape as 'spectacular'" (with ref) or "Jan Morris called the Welsh landscape 'striking'" that would be fine with me, but if we just state our subjective opinion about the beauty of the Welsh landscape (which I agree is indeed spectacular) then I don't think we're being encyclopedic. Cheers.Pondle (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll look for a quote. You could help, you know! I don't get why you don't want to celebrate something so obviously true, for the sake of an easily-changed word or easily found ref. The language was awkward when you just removed the keys words. This was why I removed all the devolved matters stuff pending work - the language was rendered awful. The Gov/Politcs section is indeed lacking too much of info we had in the lead if you want something to do! As a graphic designer I've created a 200 page fishing guide for the WTB, mapping all four corners of Wales. It has solid tourism all over (the adverts were easily brought in) and the landscape (I had to find around 200 pictures) was clearly striking and diverse throughout. It's not just national myth - I've seen it along each river in Wales. I also wrote some of the section intro prose: in my research I found quote after quote. I've seen it with my own eyes, read about it, seen it on TV etc. It's not a short bland 'briefing' here - it's an intro to a country. From the snow-peaked Snowdonia, along the celebrated coast, through mountainous plains, canals, gorgeous villages, panoramic valleys - it's a small country with 'striking' (or whatever) landscape. Show me another country like Wales - its size taken into account. It just needs a quote. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, but I don't want to use Wikipedia to celebrate anything - I just want to help to build an objective encyclopedia. I agree that we need elegant prose, but we've got to be careful to avoid opinion or advertising, don't you agree? After all, we ain't getting any paychecks from Visit Wales. Pondle (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I knew I'd get that the moment I wrote it! Would you really edit here if you didn't enjoy it? People choose the subjects that turn them on: it's all an objective celebration of something or other (when editing positively and properly at least). If not we really should be paid: it would be donkey work indeed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I enjoy editing, of course - it's great to be able to contribute to a worthy project. But I hate POV - too many articles are spoiled by folks either blatantly or subtly bigging up their hometown, their country, their favourite band or sports team, or promoting their own particular assumptions, opinions, prejudices, and propaganda. Call me a Gradgrind, but I want to try - as far as possible - to stick to the facts. Pondle (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What if the facts are also emotive? Do you remove the character and emotion? "Varied" is just half the story with the landscape. "Many parts of the country" seems hardly notable regarding tourism at all! You have actually weakened two facts: surely you know that neither can stand as they are? Or are you planning to wait a little while and remove them citing Wikipolicy too? When I have a ref-finding session soon I'll get the refs - it just seems so churlish of you to remove them now, when you know they are both notable and true! Wales, if nothing else, is a country-wide tourist attraction. It flipping survived off it for years! As for Dickens, did you ever read this one? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on Matt - you may think that the landscape of Wales is "spectacular", I might even share your view, but as an experienced editor you know that Wikipedia isn't the place for our opinions. As I said before, if you want to include an 'elegant descriptive adjective' cited in a good source, that's cool with me. I'm not trying to WP:OWN the article. But I won't support any peacock terms simply used to promote a particular person, place, thing or viewpoint. BTW in a spirit of being constructive here's an academic reference for you Pondle (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * e/c I had changed it to "striking" after your removal. I never found a ref for 'spectacular', but left it in (in April) for want of a better word. I honestly always thought someone would improve it (and indeed a few elements the work I did at one point, which had bits that were never cited from the outset) - but no-one ever did - even in the month I had off from this place in June. Mainly the editing has been in the first line, and yourself in the Assembly parag (and you are now into the wider intro). My initial change to the whole Intro was a primarily a stuctural change - and the structure has stuck. Whatever you say, it's clearly a far superior intro to the one I found. I'm no fan at all of the 'reductive' (and very often far too 'PC') attitute I've seen elsewhere - it's aiming low at best, and I'm not interested in it at all. This isn't just an encyclopedia I want to see, it's a quality one - which means so much more than just having the correct facts, important though that is (before you say).--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW I own a copy of the Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales, and I've just realised that it has a good section on landscape, topography and its appreciation (positive and negative - good for balance). There's some excellent material in there, I'll try to do something with it - I probably won't have time tomorrow, but sometime over the next few days.Pondle (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit. I wouldn't mind that myself - the internet has so much in it, it's easy to think things don't exist sometimes when it draws a blank. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was rather offended about the '3rd view' thing, btw. You didn't confer with me at all - and you requested it mid-argument (after I thought it took a bit of an unfair turn with an admin as well), while still waiting for my re-wording too (so he hasn't seen it). It was a bit of a prod from the side I felt. The outcome was the kind of pointless passing comment I myself can do with out. Either people are in the debate or they are not. I consider it 100% meaningless, and would be obliged if you do not refer to it in terms of consensus. Someone from the Bronx thinks it's too long? So what. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why were you offended? I asked for a third opinion because we seemed to be deadlocked and going round in cicles, and its difficult to reach consensus when there are only two people involved in the dispute. Third opinions and requests for comment are a legitimate part of the resolution process. I've been civil and constructive in my arguments with you, and I feel that we've made progress in the last 24 hours. Don't get so stressed about everything! Pondle (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't if obvious? I've explained it already. You ought to have brought me into the decision at very least. You didn’t even wait for me to find the words and links - ie give my version. I left your favoured edit up - there wasn't even a 1R. A 3rd opinion is surely the first 'last ditch' when two people are deadlocked. You did it before I even showed you my version! I was very bad faith I thought. You say I'm stressed - it's actually not the case. I was happy debating, though I'll always say how I feel. And I'm doing other things too. I felt a bit ganged up on, when I was working things out. I think you were on Jza's bandwagon from UK too - you may know how I feel about that editor, I think he crosses the editor/admin line unfairly sometimes. Maybe you did it in a moments stress yourself? Imagine it in the work place: Some stranger popping in to look at something involved and important to you, that you've invested time arguing on, and working on, backing you colleague, an then popping off. What would you say to your colleague for inviting him without consultation? "I could have done without that, mate." As it was not needed, the person who took up the task was always going to be a bit unwise (as we can see below). It was a flawed decision.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, the nature of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it - we are supposed to be welcoming and inclusive to "strangers" and we shouldn't get "possessive" about articles (admittedly, it's easier said than done sometimes). At the time I asked for a 3rd opinion, I believed that we were deadlocked. Asking for a neutral view from a credible, established editor seemed reasonable to me. You're entitled to your view, but I don't resile from doing it. Heck, they might even have agreed with you, in which case I think you'd probably feel rather differently about the whole thing.Pondle (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)