User talk:Matt Lewis/Archive 9

Reply to Matt from GoodDays talk page
Where did I mention that it is a canny game? Maybe you will learn that you take yourself too seriously. There you go with your accusations of POV again, please give it a rest, it's getting rather boring. I know what wikipedia is all about, and it's not about throwing tantrums when you don't get your own way, it's not about trying to bully people into going along with your opinion, and it's not about using curse words in your replys. I actualy popped into football in Ireland and a couple of editors went against you, not because they did'nt agree with you, but because of your attitude, get the picture? I have always tried to be civil with you but I must say one last thing DON'T BE A CHILD, GROW UP!! Jack forbes (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * From Scotland to Wales to the British Isles? Can you travel your road to independence off Wikipedia please? it is the winks and the lies that have pissed me off: your chatty lines, and your crocodile tears when I questioned your motives. You have not always been civil either (you have been provocative twice before) - but it makes little odds since I've earlier expressed my feelings. I strongly resent what you pulled-off with the Wales Info box (getting the First Minister before the Prime Minister) - it was purely to try and get Scotland in line - and was no different to what the now-banned Wikipeire was up to in Wales, just more underhand. You couldn't wait 2 minutes to try and get rid of the "constituent" from "constituent country" too - despite what we had all just been through with Wikipeire and the other now-banned user. The 'innocent' reasons you gave simply got less and less plausible: I respond to honesty, nothing else.


 * You should take the advice I gave on you on GoodDay's talk - it was good advice - and not respond by calling me a "child" on my Talk page. Whatever my temper is like, I am helping create an encyclopedia - you are simply promoting Scotland, and demoting Britain - through any avenue you find. You have shown no interest in reading archives, or in WP policy like POV, verifiabilty and weight. My message is: KEEP YOUR POLITICS OFF WIKIPEDIA. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Only if you keep your childishness and pro-British POV off wikipedia. You must think I was born yesterday! Go and take a break from wiki and leave wikipedia to grownups, maybe in a years time you will be ready to talk to people withought screaming and sobbing at your computer! Jack forbes (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an adult reponse. You would be surprised by my politics. What you call "pro-British" is just a simplistic reaction to me not playing the nationalism game. Wikipedia comes first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why are you constantly going on Irish related pages and causing trouble? By the way, I really don't care what you think now, but you where way off the mark in your assessment of me as far as making changes to the Wales infobox. I happen to be interested in my fellow Celtic countries. And I take it as a gross insult to compare me to Wikipeire! Jack forbes (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the paranoia that comes with extreme nationalism! Going on what Irish pages and causing trouble? Regarding other UK nations - crossing-over is one thing I don't do!


 * These are my tracks: The Manual of Style Talk and essay are about the UK - which covered Ireland a little when we went into history. It took me to British Isles - which is about the British Isles (not just Ireland) - and I've been involved a lot longer than you. Association football in the Republic of Ireland was about the word "Association" being pre-fixed to "football in.." articles (which simply happened to ROI football first). I've certainly seen the same anti-British faces throughout my travels (funnily enough), but I've simply gone where Wikipedia has taken me!


 * So you are wrong - I have never myself gone to the Irish articles and got involved with their workings - nor have I with Scotland or England. I also have principal Wikipedia interests that do not cross nationality at all: looking at your history as it stands you have been single-minded from the start! This is of course transparent - all I've done is spot it and realised your motives, which are transparent too. You are simply trying to tar me with the same brush.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What really gets me is that you and others make the word nationalist seem like a dirty word. I've got news for you, I'm proud to be a nationalist and my aim is to help Scotland gain independence. This does not mean I push it into wikipedia. Let's go back to the Wales infobox. I proposed that the First Minister be placed above Prime Minister which made perfect sense to me as the article is called Wales. I did not do this unilateraly, there was an agreement after discussion. I did the same with Scotland for the same reason. Tell me please where I was sly in this? You also mention me wanting to drop constituent and leave country, yes I suggested this, Snowdon agreed with this, but when I realised there would be no consensus for this I dropped it and never brought it up again. You compare me to Wikipeire, do you think he would have dropped it like that? Scotland changed it to country with plenty of sources to back it up. Although I took part in the discussion I was not a major player. How was that sly? And finally I placed the Scottish national anthem in the infobox, sly? One more thing, I initially agreed to place de facto next to the Welsh national anthem, do you think Welsh nationalists would be pleased with me there, some people were not too pleased about it. I wonder if they thought I did it because I was anti-Welsh nationalist? Jack forbes (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be pleased if you could apologise for comparing me to that sockpuppet using Wikipeire, but I won't hold my breath. Jack forbes (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You say you "aim to help Scotland gain independence": If you still aim to do it on Wikipedia you will be abusing it. You have certainly shown this clear pattern, despite your bullshit above - save me it please - it is doubly-cringing for me given that you are talking about my own country. You are just like the now-banned Wikipéire in that Wales is simply a tool to help you with stumbling-blocks you have encountered in your own country: you say it is so in Wales, and that "consistency" must be adhered to. I find it belittling to my small and proud country that people can feel they can do this here: it's just an easier ride in Wales. In fact - fuck off. Do you get the full weight of my feelings now? You are exploiting 'cross-article consistency' to game consensus, and I despise this element of Wikipedia. The nationalism I dislike is the extreme version you see in the young and foolish - it is the nationalism where people put country before everything, and can justify exploiting anything to achieve the nationalist goal. I do not spend my time on Wikipedia to see it abused in this way. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are a very sad person, I actually feel sorry for you! Jack forbes (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Lovely. Let's leave it there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You are almost succeeding in pushing me out of wikipedia, I'm sure now you know that you will go for the final push! You can then accuse other people of POV when they disagree with you. I hope your proud of yourself. Jack forbes (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to cool off
Matt, you've been warned time and again for incivility, personal attacks, edit warring, etc. and you must know that edits like this are simply not acceptable. It seems you've been becoming more and more aggressive and personal in your editing and it's time to have a break so that you can cool down and start thinking rationally again.


 * Update:
 * I have had no prior block.
 * The block (which I left uncontested) has inflammatory and exaggerated language "time and again".
 * Principal warner has since been blocked and warned for his warnings.
 * Other warner is also a serial warner, without substance.
 * No official (and substantiated) warning was given.
 * The editor who threatened to retire did not retire.
 * Waggers did not know the full background to argument, and built an incorrect picture on little real evidence.
 * 48 hours was unreasonable anyway. Who is to say I should 'cool off' (without a warning) for 2 whole days? Do Wikipedians now do the warnigs for amins? Is gaming the system now encouraged?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Waggers (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Why on earth have you done this? I had said the conversation is concluded - it is Jack who isn't letting it go by going to admins and other editors. I have “cooled off” (I was only hot for a moment) – and I MUST express myself on my own Talk page. Is this language-censorship? What is it? Jack Forbes gave as good as he got – and my point about him stands. Are you green-lighting Jack Forbes in a general sense ? (and why get involved?) I do need to know this now, as my time is valuable to me: I am questioning why I am on Wikipedia every day at the moment: it has to make sense to me.  I remember you from the BI nationality dispute (before you were an admin?) - are you too close to this do you think? Please answer these questions. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually don't bother: when I look at your opening line "you've been warned time and again for incivility, personal attacks, edit warring, etc." ("etc" for heaven's sake? Isn't the rest exaggerated enough!) - it simply makes me look like a bad Wikipedian. I'm just not having that. Less than 50% of admins seem to be up to the job, and unfortunately I always feel there should be more. Is worth me staying? Honestly - No. I could appeal yes, but what's the point?: Wikipedia has got to the hysterical point where editing is too-often seen as a crime (and a mark against your name), any old joe can throw around official-looking warnings (do you see me doing it?), too-busy admins simply head-count everything, and incidents are not treated on merit, but on a perceived "reputation". Name a developed country that works like that? It is a catch I can't see myself getting out of. I have a lot I still planned to do, but I can't see the merit in staying: Wikipedia has vast power and needs value-driven guideline-obeying people like myself - it is mainly the politicised who seem to understand the power of this place - but life is full of other things, and I can't see myself fitting in here anymore.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for giving Jackforbes a vulger suggestion. Wikipedia tends to frown upon the usage of certain words being used in heated moments. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

RETIRED
I'm trying to think of who to say goodbye to. One guy's left himself over the farce with football. CarterBar - good luck. RolandR springs to mind. There's a motley bunch at Alzheimer's. I have seen several admins who are in fact very good (shit you guys are up against it!) I'll leave it there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, don't be silly - there's no need for this. Just take a break, calm down a bit, and relax.  Wikipedia is not a battleground and we can't let it become one.  Yes, Jack's behaviour was far from impeccable but I didn't see him telling anyone to f**k off. Oh, and if you do feel that the block was unjustified, use the  template and get it reviewed.  I won't be offended. Waggers (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Matt, your passion and conviction can sometimes overflow into passionate language and strong statements, and from there into personal comments - and these are never going to go down well. Focus on the positives - you've made some friends here, you've made some fine contributions, and nobody wins every edit war - but you learn and move on.  I hope you decide to take a little time to relax, and then resume editing - we may not see eye to eye very much, but I respect your contributions.  --Bardcom (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Use your current block as & brief Wikibreak, then return to the community. Ain't no reason to retire. I can't get diacritics removed from Wikipeda, nor can I get the following articles - England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales in sync; but it's not something for me to retire over. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - don't be intimidated into leaving Wikipedia. Anyway, you shouldn't have been blocked. I thought a warning had to be given first, and I see no warning from the admin. Seems like "shoot first ask questions later" to me. CarterBar (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you're wrong there on several counts. There's no requirement to warn before blocking, but in any case Matt had been warned several times previously about his behaviour.  And I considered the matter long and hard before issuing the block.  Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia, it's as simple as that. Waggers (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You are just so wrong about the "other warnings" When? For what? By who? Trolls? Gaming editors? IPs? Socks? Did you really weigh them or did you just count them? Were they valid warnings? Or technically incorrect, like Bardcom's warnings for example? Were they perhaps trying to 'get in first', like Wotapalaver (who I really should have Warned myself - go and look).
 * Maybe you need to take a little longer - use the time to read up on what constitutes an ad hominen attack. --Bardcom (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How can it be true you "thought long and hard"? Jack Forbes threatened to leave Wikipedia (he's been full of crocodile tears - and is he leaving now?) and you clearly tried to change his mind by blocking me. For some reason you laid it on as thickly as you possibly could - I hope it wasn't personal, because if it was I really must have upset you somehow. Jack had already been to at least two admins, his mates, and also to Bardcom as he noticed I was in disagreement with him (which couldn't have been more provoking to me) and was told by all effectively to calm down. In the end an admin came along and simply gave him what he was clearly looking for. Did you really think about what other admins, Bardcom, myself elsewhere, and his 'buddies', actually told him regarding his grievances? If you did consider them you have little respect for the rest of Wikipedia - and especially for me. So much of Wikipedia is a struggle for all of us - why on earth make it worse?


 * "exaggeration, exaggeration", "etc etc" - its just a total character assassination: a full-on attack that was clearly intended to leave a lasting mark against my name. I am just appalled by what you've done: I find it a barbaric form of law-giving, grossly grossly unfiar. I just don't know why you did it - but it's caused simply insurmountable problems for me. If other admins in the future act the way you have done (and as others I've seen and experienced) I'm basically pre-judged as a trouble causer. I can't work with that over my head, or in others thoughts - and I've done nothing at all to deserve it. You have simply ended Wikipedia for me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, it's been made abundantly clear why I felt it was necessary for you to step away from the keyboard, and it's also clear how to contest the block if you think it's unfair. (By my reckoning it's expired now anyway).  For the record, it certainly had nothing to do with Jack's retirement from the project - I wasn't aware of that at all when I blocked you.  But surely the fact that your actions have caused (1) an admin to block you and (2) a fellow Wikipedian to retire must mean that something you did was wrong.  Bullying and trading insults are not suitable behaviour for a project like this.
 * I didn't block you as a result of any of the previous warnings you've received, but purely for your recent behaviour. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in what I said.  As for "laying it on" I was only trying to make you aware of what you're doing and how you've been affecting other editors.
 * "So much of Wikipedia is a struggle for all of us - why on earth make it worse?" - personally I find Wikipedia quite an easy and enjoyable project to contribute to, as long as you bear the basics in mind (WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc. - but these are fundamentals of life, not just WP!). If there's some particular aspect you struggle with, I'm happy to help if you'd like.
 * "a full-on attack that was clearly intended to leave a lasting mark against my name" - it was nothing of the sort. It was a temporary block to give you some time to relax and reflect, and hopefully come back calmer and in a more constructive frame of mind.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 * By the way, now that the block has expired, if you genuinely still feel that it was wrong (especially to the level that you indicate) you can still get it reviewed, and possibly (in principle at least - I'm not sure about the technicalities) removed from your record. Wikipedia takes abuse of the admin tools very seriously and I'm sure WP:ARBCOM will do the same if they agree with your viewpoint. Waggers (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My comments in bold:
 * "For the record, it certainly had nothing to do with Jack's retirement from the project – I wasn't aware of that (you acted on his threat to retire - and he DID NOT retire) at all when I blocked you. But surely the fact that your actions have caused (1) an admin to block you (you blocked me! What kind of argument is that?) and  (2) a fellow Wikipedian to retire (he didn’t) must mean that something you did was wrong.  Bullying (am I a "bully" because Jack says I am?) and trading insults are not suitable behaviour for a project like this. (trading, yes - you know we both traded - he has always traded, and this is my own Talk page) "


 * Jack DID NOT retire – he’s even commented below (which you must have read, as you removed the IP’s comment after him). He took a “wikibreak” - embarrassed, I hope.
 * You blocked me immediately AFTER he threatened to retire above, then urged him not to do it on his Talk page – why lie about this?
 * Did you once wonder why Jack called his section in my own Talk page ” Reply to Matt from GoodDays talk page ”? A bit loud for my Talk page isn’t it? After I ended the conversation, he then threatened to resign, and looked for support. He only had good advice, but unfortunately you came along and vilified me with your warning. He then changed his tune. Why must he be protected like a baby? Mollycoddle children and they never stop crying. He brought it to my Talk page shouting as loudly as he could – and I have got severely punished - not just with a 48 hours block (which in itself I would just have tried to get quashed or made shorter - as my language in my Talk page has been strong) - but with a hugely exaggerated (It's no better when I read it all again) and seriously damaging character and edit-related attack on my name. How can you be allowed to shoot an editor down like that? It was just a huge abuse of power.


 * I have very little confidence in the system - and your underlying confidence in yourself is just a bad sign. The comment you made before your block is clear, whatever you say now - you judged me by one person's threat to retire, and a brief look at my Talk page: you then went to town on my name. Now you say it's my recent behaviour (from when - and what is the difference?) - but you are still effectively supported ‘the other side’ in various arguments on my Talk page - the other sides to me. What right have you got to do that? It simply pays dividends on Wikipedia to complain, 'take offense', and throw out variously-phrased Talk-page 'warnings'! I've really suffered here by not stooping to that tactic myself (despite many an opportunity - including over most of what you think you've read above).


 * It is actually against WP policy to abuse complaints and warnings - they can be in themselves a personal attack. If you act on complaints like this to others you will help wreck Wikipedia, and your talk page will be full of frustrated (nothing more) people queueing for your "help!" Don't assume there are that many good editors to spare! You have quoted me some guidelines, I have my own for you: Why do people do complain like this? Is it always because they are so upset? Or maybe they want to get their own way? Perhaps they want to try and put someone off? Maybe they are even laying a track? Admins are supposed to know these 'ins and outs'.


 * I'm still dipping in here to make a last edit to Alzheimers, and then I'm out (and I won't have time to do it now, so I'll have to come back). You have sprung from nowhere to block me - and you are have consistently made errors: How could you read and remove a personal comment about me by an IP below (I would have left it – it spoke volumes) without noticing a comment by Jack Forbes directly above it? You are hardly the only game player on WP - my problem is that I'm congenitally honest, and too-often Wikipedia is a mug’s game. I feel really ashamed I've spent so much of my time in here, given that so little happens on so many articles.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, here's what happened. I visited your talk page because I was going to leave you a message about the current goings on at Talk:British Isles. I saw the conversation between you and Jack Forbes. I considered warning you about it, but I also saw that you'd been warned for a number of other things (rightly or wrongly) in the past, and that you claimed to have a good knowledge of Wikipedia policy. That, and your editing history at Talk:British Isles, led me to three conclusions: (1) You knew that personal attacks are wrong and went ahead anyway, thus rendering a warning obsolete; (2) Your edits had been becoming more and more heated and more and more personal in nature, indicating that you needed to cool off; (3) you've carried out other policy violations in the past, knowing exactly what you were doing, and carried on until you were warned but stopped just short of the line where further action would take place - a textbook example of gaming the system. As a result I had little option but to instigate a block. With hindsight, 48 hours was probably too long, but you had ample opportunity to contest it. My next move was to visit Jack Forbes' talk page - my very first visit to that page - to warn him about his conduct and suggest that he also takes a break to calm down. When I got there, I saw a message that he'd just posted announcing his retirement from the project. So I left a message urging him to reconsider, just as I did when I saw you make a similar decision. Yes, Jack chose to return from retirement (and of course I noticed that when I removed the IP's attack) but that doesn't make his decision to retire any less real. I still hope you will also choose to carry on. That's what happened - now please stop calling me a liar and acting as if you've been penalised for doing nothing wrong. Also, if you wish to continue to complain about the block, please do it through the proper channels; bickering here is pointless. Waggers (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * How can I carry on? It is almost surreal for you to say that. I have never "deliberately stopped short" of any line - how can you sit by your computer and say that too? You see, it's just a personal stab by you - it does not have concrete value - it's just a negative supposition: In fact, this is all your opinion. What did I do to deserve your arrival? I have spent bloody hours of my life trying to improve this encyclopedia - 'gaming' is a disgraceful judgement by you - as grossly unfair as the crimes you listed with your block decision. The 'worse' thing I've ever done on Wikipedia is try and get people interested in "Association" in the "Football in" articles during an RM poll - which was always going to be called canvassing by some: but it was no crime in itself - it was just better being done before the vote. Wikipedia really should discourage closed shops, and if you are really concerned about 'gaming' - look at when certain editors are suddenly concerned with cross-article "consistency", and then follow their tracks.


 * If you considered warning me, and didn't because other editors have recently complained to me - then you are simply not performing your job properly. YOU, an ADMIN, should warn me - you can't use the complaints of people I'm in disagreements with! FFS man! You have simply supported all the recent editors I've been in discussion with by drawing on them the way you have for your block. Can't you see that?


 * I can't face the last edit at Alz - this one now will be my last. I can and will say this is unethical and corrupt of you because this place was never a game to me - Wikipedia IS real life. Innocent people read it - not play inside it - but innocently read it. Adults too, not just kids. People here have laughed when I've said that - I wonder if you are an editor who fails to see that, or one who knows it all too well. There are simply too many admins who just don't understand the importance of this place. You have completely flattened me here anyway - whichever way I have looked at it (I can't see an appeal being given any credence - you are just fobbing me off there) - and I can't see either a fair or a manageable future, so to hell with you. I've never expected gratitude from this place - but thanks for nothing. -Matt Lewis (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested
I read through my conversation with Jack Forbes again. It began elsewhere, but he duplicated a paragraph above and it carried on in here. Apart from possibly the ‘F' word (but why would I swear unprovoked?) I would not change a single word that I wrote. So the clear question arises: Where does that leave me with WIkipedia? This is the rub, you see - I have merely been my honest self. I couldn't face challenging the judgement - I want to make edits, not go through painful bureaucracy like that. It strikes me that contesting it would put other admins in a rather invidious position too: people really shouldn’t be blocked for arguments like this! If you read the argument, Jack in the end tried to return my accusation on me, then I ended it and he ran elsewhere. It just makes me cringe. Contesting the block but finding more support would have been extremely unpleasant. I can see why some admins sympathetic to my case may have seen problems removing it now it is done, and there are far too many weak admins on Wikipedia - far far far too many. There should be a serious refresher course for all of them on the importance of mediation, the need to rise-above your subject-related POV, and on the need to spend reasonable time on decisions. I’m guessing that it’s currently the 'thing' on Wikipedia to explore incident-blocking without Warning for ‘notorious’ characters. But me though?

The nature and wording of this block has made a future here impossible for me, even in Wales, an article I openly planned to spend a lot of time on. I feel nothing but handicapped now when I think of it how to do it. Maybe I simply should have got around to archiving my Talk page – I don’t know. Admins MUST realise that Warnings from admins are obviously taken seriously and ‘officially’ – whereas pseudo-officious warnings from ‘Disagreeing Joes’ are very often not. You just cannot consider them as having equal significance. I've had warnings from IP's and sock-users! Do they count against my name? I have been disagreeing with people who have the strongest of opinions - and none of this has been taken into account. Perhaps my big mistake is that I never throw out Warnings and counter-Warnings myself - I simply use my voice. I've never been tough with anyone who isn't already playing a particular game - 'taking offense' in various ways is merely part of their hand - but all too-often it comes up trumps for them.

Tipping point

My leaving is not simply about the 48 hour block - I suppose in other circumstances I would have used it to carry on research something in this case. I’m leaving because I simply cannot change myself to fit the mould enforced by people like Waggers - to a very small degree yes, but nowhere near what would be needed by me now - it simply can't be done. And for a while it has seemed clear to me that it is just not the climate on Wikipedia for editors like myself. So much of what is stuck and guarded here needs to be fought against, but I feel handicapped anyway in being someone who fights my own ground. It’s all about cliques and cabals - even in places as important as MEDMOS. It’s a numbers game (I don't mean consensus, but cliques) – a giant headcount: a place where new people 'being bold' are admonishingly told to “TALK FIRST!!”. Some editors build a fortress in the Talk pages, and you need to stay with them forever not to scroll out of view ineffectual and forgotten. It's so often a war of attrition - and the younger editors with more time on their hands tend to win. Was Wikipedia always this unwelcoming - or has it just been going this way? In fact, is Wikipedia sliding downwards under an increasing weight of poor adminship (for whatever reasons that may be?)

I feel a 'tipping point' for me has occurred, and my own time at Wikipedia has come to an end. If I stay I'd I will always have to check my edits and comments (and even my back) to stop from getting in trouble: it's as much myself as Wikipedia - though in reality I am nothing but a helpful person! I need to feel some freedom - I cannot see myself getting it from now on. Some people are also becoming too ‘chatty’ about me personally (ie not strictly about my edits - although particular biases have much to do with it) - that kind of stigma is no help to me at all, or to Wikipedia in general. Without seeming harsh, is this place really supposed to be a “community”? (as someone calls it above)? – we are all humans for sure, but I don’t remember ever reading that in policy? So I'm fine with leaving - I'll just try not to have nightmares about what a bad force WP can be! It was sheer negative fear that first brought me here – this place can indeed change the word imo: for the worse.

Just some experiences: The majority of the articles I've contributed to have involved real battles to get somewhere that is compliant to Wikipedia’s demands. Sometimes I've helped find it, sometimes I've got nowhere – you certainly can’t win them all, but I’ve usually been prepared to be gritty (it's not a crime!). I generally don't takes things too much to heart - I generally simply care: and why not? Why else bother being here? Introductions have probably been my main interest (it's all some people read), and at least I've helped improve a good few. Experience showed me early on that you simply have to fight for things at times: if anyone disagrees, look at the Intro to Alzheimer's before yesterday: that was fought for (in structure and content) over a period, and had for a long time settled down with a genuine (though always only ‘current’) consensus. It has just yesterday, alas, been made 'more concise' by someone (bad timing or what) - so it is at the moment very staccato to read. In my opinion, this change could (and probably will) now open the door to further re-writes - initially to make the text flow, then ambiguous facts, hard-to-shorten detail, too-technical jargon, and controversial statements will all soon appear. But what can I say? The Alz Lead was an asset to WP for a good while, and if we were all cowards Wikipedia simply would not have had it. I may decide to give that one article one last edit if someone doesn’t give me another 48 hours block for speaking my mind.

After my first stint on Wikipedia in 2006, I was so cheesed-off by someone (long since banned) that I didn't come back here for a whole year! I suppose I’ve been strong-willed from that re-start. I would guess that most people like myself cannot maintain it forever: there is that structural-weakness-bolstered 'tipping point' where it just becomes impossible. Unfortunately Wikipedia is currently more suited to IPs, sock-users and POV-text protectors than it is to actual positive editors - so-much still needs ironing out. It might be so flabby now that nothing can be ironed out, and it will just bloat and get progressively worse. Concerned people need to look back upon the more central policies and guidelines. What is stopping progress?

Just some observations: An increasing amount of editors and admins are being very negative about simple 'edit exchanges'. Some are, I expect, well-meaning slightly conservative people from amongst the many Wikipedians who rarely write the prose - but many now are cynically taking free hop-on rides on this - seriously foolish - bandwagon. These anti-editors often fail miserably to AGF by pre-judging 'edit exchanges' to be edit wars. Edit wars in themselves are not always the evil they are made out to be either: sometimes they are the only things that show the state of play. There is a ubiquitous member on Wikipedia that most of us know, who I really wish would take this to heart. Is dead-page discomfort really better than movement and life? And life here is ultimately about the English language - the largest and surely the greatest language in the world. Nobody can write anything that is really important in one draft. We must ask ourselves: why is x editor so against using words? We must ask that question! And appropriating words from citations SHOULD NOT be the preferred way to go. I've seen some seemingly-respected editors insisting on this cited-word-appropriation (like at Autism - a very overrated FA) - to the absolute detriment of the article! "But the reference clearly says..."! Heavens above! Are we not allowed to use our brains to VERIFY AND WEIGH-UP ourselves? Is it that ugly to use quotation marks - even if it's the best way through? We are an encyclopedia for Pete's sake! But some very unskilful editors (or small groups of editors) are treated with reverence: their awkward (even confusing) edits and reverts are supported across Projects and MOS's and their articles with unthinking dedication, it seems. The 'cabal' element on the editing side really is unpleasant: it may well protect much (for good and bad), but it does the very opposite of advancing the encyclopedia.

Anyway, I'll be back to change my user page when I'm allowed to, and that's it. I’m going to leave it partly-intact, and may add a couple of extra points about WP I never got around to putting up! Why not? I only need to add the right template, I would guess. Out of Wikipedia, I am always able to increase my income in a self-employed capacity, and am planning to go back to that. Regards, Matt.

ONE LAST NOTE ON BRITAIN: I am Welsh. Legally and culturally, whether anyone likes it or not (myself included) I am British too. It's like comparing a birth-child with a child by marriage - NOBODY has the right to tell me I should love above the other – or to demote the British side of me, whether to my face, or via articles on Wikipedia. We are not all ‘pure of blood’ (far from it) – and some of us have more worthwhile concerns in life. Despite what some have foolishly said (how can you gun for something that already exists?), nobody here knows what I really feel about being British. Some other English-readers might not realise that Britain actually still exists after reading some areas of Wikipedia! People want independence from it - fine - but it SHOULD NOT BE PROPAGATED IN THIS ENCLOPEDIA. I have also heard some nasty 'racism' (for want of a better word) on Wikipedia against "you British": it generally gets passed by. My suggestion to Wikipedians would be wise up: and don't let people blur periods in the past with the present - not on any level.

I may as well add my position on Britain: On one hand I would quite like to see independence (more for Scotland, I'm a bit less sure about Wales in terms of actual success - and many intelligent people believe both would makes us weaker), but on the other hand I believe that a world without the word-famous Anglo-Celtic (and settler too) ‘symbiosis’ of Britain (which has given the world much) will be immeasurably weaker: the world simply needs us strong, not split-up and weakened. The UK gov may have un-democratically backed the USA gov in their recent wars (which meant so much to the Bush-unsure Americans at the time) - but having such a Right-wing 'party' usurp our Left was always going to be short-lived thing: a hung parliament at the next election is highly possible - and our status in the future can (and surely will) rise again. Even now we are hardly a small fish! The UK is here (whether some people like it or not) and in my opinion will be needed in this world. Millions across Britain (and the wider world too) believe in what we have - the UK. The literal and cultural 'cross-breeding' accross the whole of the British Isles has been so fantastically successful I find it madness to be anti-British because of events in the past. The vast majority of people in Britain and Ireland are not anti-British in the slightest - but this encyclopedia consistently reflects the wishes of those who are, and of those who wish to promote their own country's independence.

I can honestly say that my above opinion has not adversely effected a single edit or suggestion of mine, in any of the articles and Talks where the subject of nationality has often been so crudely highlighted. My contributions here have all been fair and weighted, showing both sides, even when things like Introduction-notability are seriously in question. They have always been (or tried to be) properly guideline-based in their wording and structure. I have also, sometimes uniquely on this subject, written compromises into my prose - even if a factual inaccuracy or two may possibly have popped up. With me, Wikipedia has always come first. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If wikipedia really comes first for you then stay. It matters not what you think of me if you find it that important. Should I have gone to admins and complained about you! Perhaps not. Don't get me wrong, I'm still pretty pissed off with you, but if you stay I will avoid your talk page like the plague. Lets not get too deep into how all this started, but by all accounts you are a good contributer, so don't cut off your nose to spite yourself. If you stay I ask only one thing, don't pre-judge any of my comments or opinions, let me edit or give my opinions withought accusations. As I said, it does not matter what you think of me, just get on with your job of making a good encyclopedia Jack forbes (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank God for this. The most POV pushing, argumentative editor has called it a day! He always fought his own opinions and attacked editors rather than discussing neutral facts; always to the detriment of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is now a better place.193.203.139.65 (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Me?? an athiest?? sanctimonious?? GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude
you seem really cool and i agree with the reasons you left but you should come back, it just means wikipedia has one less good user and more bad ones. thanks ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 04:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome Back
Ye have returned to the land of Wiki, welcome back Matt. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I never attended to the Alzheimer's article as I wished to, and I may make a couple more edits around and about (the Wales page clearly needed attention with that bizarrely twice-used word in the first parag). Whether I'll stay I don't know - I'm trying to look afresh after a month doing other things. I certainly still feel handicapped with regards to editing in the British Isles-related articles - and elsewhere too, now I have a block record. Being a law abiding person, it simply cheeses me off on that level too. I feel like I'll be on perpetual remand around certain people which the suddenly-appearing Waggers clearly supports, and all I've ever done wrong on Wikipedia was 3RR with an IP address and a sock puppet (which I got a fairly quickly-removed block for), and later-on swear at someone on my own talk page - for which I inexplicably got a 48 hour block. The reason given with it was an entirely subjective attack on my name, with no prior warning (or even a 'hello'), and no evidence given at all other than to cynically wave towards some meaningless editor-made 'Warnings', which were simply left with no other reason that to either gently or clumsily game the system. It is clear on reading the actual 'incidents' behind the tactical Warnings, which are always omitted from the Warnings themselves. It is something I've simply never done. Even when I've had valid reason 'Warn' someone, I don't think I've ever done it - I tend to address people face to face - like adults do.


 * If an admin can't see through 'faux' warnings, then what the is the point? I've been 'Warned' before now for being in a position where I could 3RR! "you will be blocked" etc, if I do it! But why would I do it? If that's not gaming the system by blackening someones name, then I'm the King of the Congo. I bet Waggers counted that one too on my (admitedly foolishly-long) talk page.


 * I suppose I was so disgusted by Waggers I couldn't bring myself to contest him. He could easily have stepped back himself, or at least toned-down his report - but he didn't, and he said he fully considered me before making it. It made me sick to be accused of "gaming" too. I've watched so much gaming going on in Wikipedia, and I've done absolutely nothing as serious - even when I got involved in the sleazy 'Association Football' story, and dared to so-called 'canvass' the relevant articles about an ongoing RfM - my only (debatably) controversial act.


 * At least I've learnt about the power admins have to influence articles by supporting groups of editors, and to batter those who simply work alone. Some admin are clearly like bent wardens in a prison yard. There is no-doubt staying in groups is the key to Wikipedia, but I'm no good at that, and have no desire to do it anyway. I'm talking myself out of it already! So I may stay around a bit - but I certainly think this place stinks to high heaven. I'll see how I feel tomorrow.


 * I still feel like ranting - so it's clearly not looking good. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Go on Matt, rant away, I know how you feel. I feel kind of responsible for it, and also kind of guilty. I didn'nt mean to push you into leaving and I apologise. You might guess who I am and know what happened to me, so you know that your more valuable to wiki than I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.198.73 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Go on Matt, rant away" - I think he just did! But anyway, welcome back, Matt.  Don't hesitate to ask if I can assist in any way. Waggers (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can always revise, or even retract your love letter - or perhaps give some evidence for your accusations that would stand up in a treehouse on a rainy July? ie something concrete I can address, rather than a bad smell - which everyone knows is there, but is kind-of hard to grab hold of. Something withought prejudice, perhaps. I'd hardly be running to yourself if I ever needed help, as I'm sure you know. And when have you seen me run to anyone anyway? Assuming you actually know me as an editor - we never were introduced. That is the handicap I have before I even start typing - I don't 'tell tales' unless it is both a genuine matter, and a serious matter. A double failure of me - honesty is just not the way to survive on Wikipedia, nor is being open or upfront. As you may have seen by my, perhaps unlikely, recent support for the now-unblocked Jack forbes (who you rather cheekily, under the circumstances, just shared a lighthearted jape with) - I blame editors less for playing the game, then I blame admins for laying their turf. And my language may vary, but you can rest assured I stand by every point I make. I retract if I ever do change.


 * Underneath whatever they have, people are of course animals, and they can sense from their surrounding environment both how they can behave, and how they need to behave. What does that say about a typical day on Wikipedia? and on certain 'controversal' subjects especially? How does it go?


 * After over 5 years up and running, and millions of views and members, thousands of important articles could be re-written and improved-upon by a single teenager on a lunch break. All Wikipedia can boast of after all this time is how many 'scientific' articles (read 'uncontroversial and fact-based') now equal the Encyclopedia Britannica in accuracy! Not quality, just basic accuracy. And Wikipedia has a good deal on Google's 'page ranking' - which means that everyone gets to read Wikipedia articles whether they have any value or not. Wikipedia seems to have to lock every non-benign article it wants to stay stable - and ususally in a pretty muddled state. It's no wonder that admins behave as they do themselves, but I never forgive anyone who voluntarily takes power and abuses the basic principle of fairness. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what you have against me. The rules about personal attacks, no matter what the provocation, are clear, and you crossed the line.  I had no choice but to act.  If you thought the block was unfair, you should have contested it at the time - I made it clear how to do that, and you decided not to.  Once the block was finished, you continued to moan, so I pointed out the way to get my actions reviewed - again, you chose not to do that.  You talk as if administrators are a law unto themselves, and that isn't true - we're as open and accountable as the rest of the community, if not more so.  Administrators are human beings, and are just as prone to making mistakes as anyone else, which is why it's so easy to get our actions reviewed.  Either forgive and forget (or at least move on) or do something about it - just whining here achieves nothing, for you or the project. Waggers (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You have no idea of the consequences of your own actions - that's what gets me! Did you think you not get a reply to your above 'comment'? I noticed yesterday that admins can give out 3-hour blocks! You have to understand that the 48-hour one you gave me is always going to be a personal attack - given the 'reasoning' you gave for it, how can I see it as any other way? And you say I crossed the line? You put the subject, your favourite editors, and your feelings first. It went so far beyond 'mistake', I couldn't stomach protesting it - there we go - maybe I'm not as 'into' the 'bureaucracy' as you.


 * If you believed in the 'the project' (and its time and bandwidth), you could have removed/changed it yourself, rather than challenge me to fight it. You could easily have retracted, changed or re-written it - and instead you told me to appeal. How was that good for the 'project'? I didn't like your attitude, was very upset, and chose not to do it.


 * If you want to 'move on' I suggest you keep out of my Talk page. Or maybe actually introduce yourself next time, instead of coming in like a sword-wielding Crusader on a foaming horse, followed by (frankly) gloating a month later.


 * And don't tell me what I do or don't achieve for the 'project'. I don't document what I've done, or covet barnstars, but I do a number of things here (too many really - I'm always leaving stuff unfinished) - which includes removing spam from about 15 connected and highly-vulnerable technology articles that I watch. Sometimes I offer advice where needed, I use Talk as much as I can, and sometimes I stick my neck out. So don't be so sanctimonious about 'the project' - and remember that this is my Talk page. I'm entitled to a little slack here (whether it is to 'moan' or not) - something you refuse to take into account.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, first up, this is a collaborative project. Editors don't need to "introduce themselves" to each other every time they meet.  But in any case, we were already acquainted - usually battling on the same side of the argument at Talk:British Isles.  That also deals with your unjustified suggestion that I was putting my "favourite editors" or "the subject" first; I haven't stated any opinion on the argument you were having, but as it happens I agreed with your point of view.  It was therefore with a heavy heart that I blocked you, and I did so purely for being abusive to another editor and for apparently increasingly erratic editing behaviour.  My opinions on the subject of your argument, historical warnings that you've received, other editors' threats to leave the project - none of those had any bearing on the decision.  You say "I'm entitled to a little slack here" - well, actually, so am I. Waggers (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavy heart? Did you have 'shaking hands' as well? You say you were 'left with no choice'? Intensify the weight of your crap why don't you? You turned up in British Isles just before you blocked me. You put down one decent compromise, and threw the toys out of the pram on my Talk page when the big cross-discussion overlooked your suggestion. So I was angry in the discussion? I was entitled to be - If you had followed the article you would have known why. But this is all about you isn't it? You getting attention. You had no idea of what people had been through on BI because you were not there. (But of course you will say you watched it all) Try sticking around and working hard towards something like I have done, why don't you? I've been thinking of finding admin closure on your block and comment - but I can't stand the sound of your voice anymore. I suggest you search out Jack forbes and joke with him some more, as you are clearly both in tune. I am going to be expressly honest here - I think you are a self-righteous person - a power-freak in a very particular way. Now please will you get off my talk page. If you don't I really will have to retire, because in real life I avoid people like you like the plague. It's simple - you have obviously lost you precious authority as far as I'm concerned, so keep out of my way. Be nice. I have to edit with 48 hours and and asbo on my head. From what I've seen, most people have had a number of blocks before they get that - but that is the position you have dumped me straight into! To hell with you Waggers, are you trying to finish me off with more crap? What are you doing? Just p off. Just take your skewer and leave me alone.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All I'm doing is defending myself against your unfounded and groundless accusations. I'm not enjoying being attacked by you, but I don't see why I should take such an assault on my character lying down.  What ASBO?  You're free to edit anywhere you want to, there are no restrictions on you at all.  As for "You had no idea of what people had been through on BI because you were not there" - that's absolutely laughable.  Check the history, you'll see that I was involved in that page long before you were.  Now please can we both get on with our lives? Waggers (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from when archiving (which at some point you changed to a section-rearranging bot - it is now very hard to now follow the last two archives with this article, by the by - I've just given up) - you edited only a handful of times in the preceding 6 weeks or so - 10 at most. I wonder what you think is a long/short time. That was my period anyway - though I've been elsewhere on the subject since last year. 6 weeks is no sniff for me, and I can forgive myself for forgetting your edits, anyway. For the admin clearly in charge, you let a lot of stress build, and you clearly failed to recognise it for what it was when it flairs. How you can be proud to be a (the?) resident admin on that article I just don't know - being on it for such a long time is seriously no boast - as I'm sure you, in reality, know.


 * I don't think I've even commented on the real madness yet: The intro is almost exactly the same as it was before you precided over the Last Great Poll, performed after I was blocked and had chosen to leave. What was achieved? A massive resounding Zero. And now the BI article has been ‘stamped and sealed’ in a non-MOS highly-biased position - in the very un-changeable, un-flexible, poll-driven and group-pandering way Wikipedia is supposed not to be about.


 * Why did I say "almost" exactly the same? Because all that happened, courtesy of the great "Souza Proposal" was the first words of the sentence - "Although still in use," - got removed!!!! DID YOU REALISE THAT?? CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHY A WAS A LITTLE OFFENDED WHEN THE PROPOSAL TOOK OFF LIKE THE NEW HARRY POTTER?? GIVEN THAT MY INITIATING PROPOSAL WAS TO MOVE IT FORWARD?? Did you read my first proposal - carefully written to ADD TO and ADVANCE the article??? Did you realise that "the Dave Sousa" proposal was NOT an even actual proposal, and he never commented after it, even to vote (and if you read below, looks like the oddest edit anyway)? Did you see how the nationalist contingent immediately sprung on it, christening it a "proposal"? Did you ever think of cutting me some slack? No - you went the other way, and removed me for two days.


 * This place is madness.


 * Thank god I missed the usual back-slapping by everyone when it was done. I notice Wotapolava put back in some of the swathes of bold text removed from those completely unique scolling refs, to cater for the 'new interest'. By blocking me you saved me the nightmare of witnessing it. I'll archive this soon, so don't sweat it. Do you know what total sheer madness is? - you are part of it - it's called Wikipedia. Sheer total madness.


 * If you are truly on the side of being able to use the term "British Isles" Waggers, then all you have done is precide over Wikipedia losing the line that says "it is still in use". What a brain-curdling howler.


 * You say I can edit wherever I want?


 * Can I go back to British Isles and sneak back in the "Although still in use," words? Can I, do you think? But how many "Warnings" will my page have then? How many attacks at my "behaviour"? How many "The Sousa proposal"s will be screamed at me like playground girls in BI talk? How many "read Talk - we have a consensus" will I receive? How many "no more 'disruption', or you'll get blocked for a month next time" will I get? (especially thanks to you). You claim to know the article. What do you think? Go on - I'm actually asking you to reply now?


 * THE OPENING PROPOSAL: (by myself - the first of a few from me, too)


 * Although commonly used worldwide, the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people have found it objectionable.[4] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[5]


 * PROPOSALS OF THE DAY (by Dave Souza)


 * - Just to clarify, my suggestion would be on the lines of :
 * The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find it objectionable.[4] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[5]
 * That leaves an ambiguity about usage in NI, but that doesn't need going into detail in the lede. . . dave souza, talk 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * - That just has too many statements about Ireland, three in all when one is all that is needed. I'd still vote for Matt's number 4 and can live with the one from Bardcom. --Snowded (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * - Okay, now I'm really confused. :-) Doesn't Matt's last suggestion--the one I thought you were voting for--have the same number of comments about Ireland? Nuclare (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * - My fault, I meant Matt's first! Apologies for that --Snowded (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * - Accepting that point, my preference would be –
 * The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable;[4] the Irish government also discourages its usage.[5]
 * "Although still in use" seems to me to poison the well, and is unclear about where it's still in use, aspects which are dealt with in the linked article but are too complex and unnecessary in the lead. . . dave souza, talk 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)"


 * THAT WAS THE LAST COMMENT HE MADE - HE NEVER EVEN VOTED! A bit weird, no? But it certainly took off! Look at the cautious way Wotapalava greeted it - as if it was a mistake!! The only problem, though...


 * The page as it stood beforehand:


 * Although still in use, the term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable;[4] the Irish government also discourages its usage.[5]


 * After the eventual Poll: (the chosen 'Souza proposal")


 * The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people may find the term offensive or objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[5]


 * Just a bit of an insult to the proposer don't you think, who has always had to keep reminding people that the term is actually very much in use (though they don't want to hear it), and who simply wanted to advance a static article? A bit of a backward step, no?


 * QUOTE OF THE DAY (by GoodDay)


 * "I'm against edit wars on article. I supported Sousa's proposal, because most of the others did (therefore, supporting it in hopes of ending the conflict)."


 * Even good old Mother Theresa would be a little bit peeved, no? What with all the socks and Jack and stuff? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's my quote. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing like good ole GD:consistency, eh?
 * ...and, (as I forgot mention) what with me having to put up with all those crazy "ad hominen" 'Warnings' from Bardcom that you were so impressed with judging by - but wiser admins, fortunately, seem to find as OTT and misguided as I do. By the way, he's complaining '24 hours' is a bit hefty for a first block - and it was his second block in a day too: his first was 3 hours, but it seems admin have different ideas about these things, doesn't it?...(hmm, I wonder what GoodDay would say about the consistency here?)... And the 'ArticleControl' Warnings from Wotapalava, that combine with the steaming dumps he leaves around Wikipedia with my name on. Another calculated curly Warning dropper who you have allowed to do your own work for you by 'appropriating' those delightful warnings for yourself. At least I had some friendly advice given to me from a couple of people regarding Football, which I'm sure you didin't cynically take as proof I was needy of advice, and therefore needy of some harsh punishment? Not when you consider the spirit they were written in, surely? Hmmm.


 * You've not got a lot on target lately, imhaho - just thought I best let you know (now that I am, believe it or not, calming down enough to get the whole "it's a steaming pile of shit which ever way I've looked at it" element out about your collaterally-worded 48-hour daisy cutter - but out it will all get).
 * I've given up on consistancy at those articles England, Northern Ireland, Wales & Scotland; too much hassle. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So is all this about three words then, "still in use"? I really can't see what the fuss is about.  I'm very happy to see those words removed from the BI article - their inclusion carried an implication that, for some reason, the term shouldn't still be in use.  The fact that the term is "still in use" should be fairly obvious because it's the name of the article!  What other articles mention that the name of the thing they're written about is "still in use"?  There's simply no need for that phrase to be there, IMHO.  Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia doesn't have "resident administrators" on articles.  I'm under no obligation to edit any Wikipedia article or talk page - I'm a volunteer like everyone else. Waggers (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You read all the above and concluded "So all this is about three words then 'still in use'"!!


 * My point was that I proposed a desperately needed advancement! All that occurred (after all the proposals) was a small deletion! And one that even makes the anti-BI bias more apparent. People were saying the sentence was deadlocked - how is it not in the same state now? How did the deletion help?


 * If you can't see the irony you have no humour - which would explain your inability to see why your gross 48-hour block was an unacceptable thing to do. It evidently doesn't embarrass you, and I've said all I can now. Some people are just impenetrably thick headed - you are clearly one of those people. and he fact you are a merely volunteer, yet have the power you do, is what scares me. If you really believe that no editors get 'assigned' to articles (in what ever manner if may be) you are actually a naive admin too. I thought everyone knew that that is a trend the occurs, esp on contentious issues.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some people are just impenetrably thick headed - you are clearly one of those people." Please stop the personal attacks right now if you don't want to be blocked again. Yes, things like WP:OWN and WP:SPA happen, but they are very much discouraged.
 * As for the BI argument, I can't see what was so "desperate" or why the removal of "still in use" is so bad - as I've explained above, I think that phrase carries an anti-"British Isles" bias and the article is better off without that. Waggers (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My very first proposal started with "Although commonly used,", and then explained Ireland, giving a far more honest line on the Irish gov than claiming "the Irish government discourages its usage! To who? The people of Ireland? The whole sentence has been hotly debated for ages - you ought to have known that, and where it was going. It is quite clear to me now that were not properly in touch with the article at the time.


 * A general reader could be forgiven for thinking the term British Isles is rarely in use at all. And I still can't find this weight on 'dissent' over the term anywhere other on Wikipedia - not even remotely. If it was out there the article wouldn't be an issue for me, or for many - as the dissent would not have to be so uncompromisingly forced in, and the article so determinately curtailed and position-protected.


 * My point is that no advancement was made - and my proposal was made to suggest a way forward, and was initially welcomed as such. It was why I got a little frustrated when things actually started heading backwards.


 * By condescendingly saying "So this is all about three words" you simply disallow all these factors that lead to my frustration at the time (which I have very clearly detailed for you) which is why I made the "personal" comment you have complained about. You can't change what happened! I maintain you simply didn't follow things properly, and that you did me no justice at all. But it's done.


 * I'm not going to argue about the block any more - we are simply offending each other so we both better stop. I just think you deserved something relatively comparable back from me at very least - and hopefully you'll 'admin' a little better in the future for it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we actually agree on the British Isles thing. I certainly agree that there's still too much weight placed on the controversy around the term, and also that there's been heated debate on this subject for ages.  I've certainly been involved in my fair share of it.  Over time, my experience has taught me that arguing about it is a waste of time - there are far more important things to worry about than achieving balance on that one article.  It's just not worth getting worked up about it. Waggers (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I would like to thank you for your opinion on my request to lift my indef block. Too be honest, I was very surprised your opinion was that I could come back, considering the heated discussion we had previously, where I wrongly attempted to and got you blocked. I should have taken it on the chin as you did. I know I'm still not your favourite person, which makes it a little bit more humbling for me that you did this. I should be old enough (yes, Im not a young un) to let much of it go over my head. As I'm sure you know, I will be staying clear from British and British Isles articles for at least 6 months. Keeps the blood pressure down. When, or if I do return after that period I hope people will see me in a different light. I have written this not knowing what your response will be but felt I had to say this. Thanks! Jack forbes (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack - funnily enough, I just reponded to Snowded on your Talk. I didn't read this first as I'd just logged on and thought my New message was from Waggers(!). The only thing I don't like is socking - all the rest is part of the debate. I do debate strongly - I always have, and I like to see it as part of a British tradition! If there is any sun about I'd be envious of you having more of a reason to keep away! --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Matt, I honestly don't deny anything. I notice your good point on the Joe Deagan sockpuppet. I did use it to mention the defacto on the Scottish national anthem, which was wrong of me, I then realised I should'nt do it and stopped immediately. That, of course, still means it was being used as a sockpuppet. I'm not excusing myself, just explaining. As you say, I will bring my political opinion to the talk pages when I come back, but with a cooler head and hopefully more discussion and references than ranting. No good references - no go. I wish you well in your editing and perhaps I will see you around the British and British Isles pages in 6 months or so. Take care and cheers! Jack forbes (talk) 12:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. I was out golfing three days last week, so the weather is'nt too bad. Shame about Wales.:) Jack forbes (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck to yourself. funnily enough the sun is starting to appear today (in spurts). We've had around 6 weeks of almost none and a lot of rain, in Cardiff (normally clement) at least. It's even been cold on occasions. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)