User talk:Mattmcds

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Mattmcds, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! causa sui (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Michael Lewis
Please see the discussion page if you want to talk about the edits. Lovesbooks25 (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=|link=]] Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Lovesbooks25. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  19:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Spouting your POV in caps on my talkpage
Hi. - please don't spout your POV on my talkpage, especially not shouting in capitals - thanks. I will post it here for you - iI suggest you read some of Policies and guidelines - and if you want to shout your upset about this living person - get a blog - its free - thanks -

michael lewis

Ok, so the huffington post is not reputable. Specific factual innacuraccies are not notable when made by a writer THAT WIKI ALLOWS TO BE IDENTIFIED AS NONFICTION? please explain this to me? HOW CAN YOU-YOU-YOU, BECAUSE IT IS YOU, ALLOW AN EDITOR TO STATE THAT LEWIS IS A 'NONFICTION" WRITER WHEN HE HAS A HISTORY OF FACTUAL INNACURACIES AND THEN DELETE A STATEMENT OF FACT EVIDENCING HIS FACTUAL INNACURACIES? CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOURSELF? THIS IS NOT OVER, MY EDITS WILL ULTIMATELY, IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, WIND UP ON LEWIS' PAGE FOR ESSENTIALLY POSTERITY, REGARDLESS OF SOME interpretations OF WIKI'S RULES. TELL ME WHEN A WRITER, THAT EDITORS LIKE YOU ALLOW TO BE DESCRIBED AS "NONFICTION", MAY, IN YOUR EYES, HAVE INCLUDED ON HIS PAGE SPECIFIC FACTUAL INNACURACIES FROM THEIR STORIES THAT ARE PROPERLY CITED? IF LEWIS WROTE THAT JEWS FLED EUROPE IN THE FIRST 35 YEARS OF THE 20TH CENTURY BECAUSE THEY LOATHED THEMSELVES SO, WITH NO QUALIFICATION, WOULD THAT BE "NOTABLE" ENOUGH TO BE INCLUDED AS AN INNACURATE STATEMENT MADE BY YOUR-YOU-YOUR "NONFICTION" WRITER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmcds (talk • contribs) 7:24 pm, Today (UTC+1)


 * - get a blog in under 30 seconds http://en.over-blog.com/signup?gclid=CL2P_eX496sCFcRO4Qodkzv4wg

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

talkpage etiqueeete
Hi here at en wikipedia if someone removes your cpost from their talkpage its considered that he has read it - don't post it back again its considered rude - and against Talk page guidelines - Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Off2riorob. diff - If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this edit is clearly over the line. If you want to discuss this subject, please do so on the article's talk page and talk about the article, not your fellow editors. Dayewalker (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Michael Lewis. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with your latest edit, at least is that it is clearly not NPOV. Calabe1992 16:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean it is not "NPOV"? "A prime criticism of Lewis is that he loose with facts". One can find this criticism EVERYWHERE because HE IS loose with facts - in fact he routinesly MAKES THINGS UP. The cited article notes multiple instances of this. How is this not NPOV? Senence # 2: Lewis falsely claimed - even though he alleges he was actually present in parliament - that "everything" within their parliament is spoken in English and then in Gaelic. This is NPOV and taken from his own article. I previously had linked to a youtube clip of debate in that parliament disproving Lewis' claim but that was "not allowed" by some over-vigilant wiki-editor. How do you prove what language is spoken in a foreign parliament other than youtube videos clearly indicating the facts? I am in the process of working with the Irish Parliament to obtain some proof that I intend on publicizing and formatting so it may be cited in the Wiki article. In any event no problem with NPOV in that sentence. Sentence #3: He DOES USE theat false claim as a premise for another bogus claim - READ THE ARTICLE. Again, this is delivered in NPOV. You can't be specific in your critique because you are wrong. Sentence #4 is also a FACT, it is CITED and delivered in NPOV. Even the paragraph as a whole cannot be construed as something other than NPOV. It is a series of facts delivered nuetrally and with citation; same as saying Hitler oversaw the murder of millions, or Newt Gingrich has been reported to have left his wife while she had cancer in order to carry on a secret affair with another woman.

As a prior editor astutely pointed out, there is no rule that these pages are to be hagiographies. Nor should there be one. It is not my fault that Lewis is a dangerous bigot operating surreptisiously - whether he is concious of this or not. But guess what? I do not call him a bigot. THAT would NOT BE NPOV. Instead I deliver, in a nuetral manner, FACTS. I am not drawing conclusions within the article in spite of the conclusions I have personally reached. I know you and other editors will not be specific. It is apparent from the lack of specific response and/or friendly assistance - in spite of the fact that many of you spend most of your lives roaming these pages - that I am dealing with intellectually dishonest and/or intellectually immature people.

Michael Lewis, again
See the talk page on the Michael Lewis article regarding the material you have been attempting to insert into the article. Please post any comments or responses over there. Terence7 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)