User talk:Matt Lewis/Archive 5

Wndl42 (his heading changed)

Fyi, the Wikiquette noticeboard has been updated as follows:

see here

riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

ROFL! MurphiaMan (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Matt, just wanted to share a final thought before the outcome of the Wikiquette alert. Everybody has a POV, yours appears to include a lot of passion over the your feelings about Islam, and I can see that from your talk page and from your edit history. When conflicts arise, it's natural to assume others have POVs, since we all do, but don't assume bad faith. Suggest you review WP:AGF for context.

Next time, before posting personal attacks on other user's talk pages, perhaps spending a few minutes reading their talk pages and reviewing their edit history will help you get to know your fellow editors and prevent situations like this. Had you read even just the talk page entry immediately above your entry, you'd have had a chance to get to know me before winding up in this unfortunate situation. You'd also have a chance to see how editors with polar opposite POV's can nonetheless get along. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The cake mixture and the fruit! Help! I had to take the article off my watchlist it started looking so crackers. I stuck with it back to consensus, then he pulled his jumbo paint set out. He kept gettting his wrist slapped for his own complaint too - finally for blackmailing me! hhh I can laugh now. Plenty of other stuff to do.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've changed his 'Alert' heading because he was scolded for filing it - and it's occured to me how bad this page is looking! I'm a nice guy! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shortened block on WNDL42

I posted this on Rlevse's talk page, but:

I agree with MBisanz's statement on Rlevse's talk page. I'll monitor Windl and take appropriate action if he continues edit warring. Blocks are preventative and not puntative, and with the unfairness of how the blocking and then self-reviewing admin..who then made snarky remarks to top it off, I decided to shorten the block even furhter. And yes, there were several emails to me about this situation. Dreadstar † 04:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you read this before you act..well, if you act. Have a good sleep. Dreadstar † 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification: AfD on List of United States journalism scandals

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of United States journalism scandals, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of List of United States journalism scandals. WNDL42 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I have informed you many times now, "List of United States journalism scandals" was suggested in the AfD on "United States journalism scandals" (by the article-creator admin FT2, and Fram (who judged the AfD). --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

List of United States journalism scandals

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article List of United States journalism scandals, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Matt...

I thought you might like this (great mp3's) and this. For the latter, there are hundreds of sayings to see if you click repeatedly. WNDL42 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I've responded in detail at United States journalism scandals, can we continue to discuss before you remove links from related articles? (Insight magazine) Thanks...WNDL42 (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link because it links to a locked page that is frozen in an objectionable state - it's simply not good form to keep a "see also" link in under those circumstances! I happen not to think it's a needed link anyway. The page is merely a list of "scandals" that are covered om the main pages anyway - so what's the point of using it as a "see also"? I just means more to protect, and more for the unscrupulous to try and control.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but the "see also" is needed to help our readers understand the motives behind the scandal.

Echo chamber is not "original research"

Matt, you told me that: "We disagreed fundamentally over Original Research. I'm a straight down the line facts man - if we don't use the same rule book, more changes get made, and more time gets wasted. I'm aware of what you call the "echo chamber effect"...Mentioning terms like "Echo chamber effect" in articles is to go the other way, though!"

Matt, I have shown you repeatedly that the "ECHO CHAMBER" is NOT original research, and have sourced it well and fully over and over and over again, here and here and here and HERE and HERE. You now have thousands of sources for you on that "Echo chamber", so please stop (a) calling it "original research", (b) telling me that I am "wasting time" and (a) implying that "Mentioning terms like "Echo chamber effect" is somehow "against the rules", OK? WNDL42 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

---

See news: Reverend Moon's Anti-Obama Agit-Prop Thursday, 25 January 2007, 10:35 am

If you've ever wondered how agit-propaganda works, you might take a look at the latest case study from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's media empire - a bogus story about Barack Obama attending a Muslim "madrassah" when he was six years old, a smear that was then attributed to operatives of Hillary Clinton.

The shrewdness of Moon's Insight magazine story is that it hit two enemies with one anonymously sourced stone, a strategy of slime and divide straight from the textbooks of a spy agency like the CIA.

Only in this case, it is not the CIA planting black propaganda in a foreign publication to undermine some U.S. enemy. It is Moon using his media outlets subsidized by his mysterious foreign money to manipulate and distort the U.S. political process, again.

The Insight "madrassah" story also turned out to be false. As CNN reported on Jan. 22, the Indonesian school that Obama attended as a child was not a "madrassah" where sometimes extreme forms of Islam are taught, but rather a well-kept public school in an upper-middle-class neighborhood of Jakarta.

The boys and girls wear school uniforms and are taught a typical school curriculum today as they were 39 years ago when Obama was a student there, while living with his mother in Indonesia, reported CNN correspondent John Vause, who has had prior experience covering real "madrassahs."

While most of the school's students are Muslim - Indonesia is a Muslim country, after all - Vause reported that the religious views of other students are respected and that Christian children at the school are taught that Jesus is the son of God.

Nevertheless, the nasty Insight story is sure to hurt Obama by pushing anti-Islamic hot buttons of many Americans. By citing Clinton operatives as the supposed source of the story, Moon's publication also played to the negative image of the New York senator as a ruthless politician who would sling mud at an opponent.

Moon's media empire has planted similar stories in other U.S. presidential campaigns, publishing false or exaggerated stories that disparaged Democratic candidates and helped Moon's political favorites - particularly in the Bush family.

In Election 1988, Moon's Washington Times floated a story that Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis had psychiatric treatment, harming George H.W. Bush's Democratic opponent; in Election 1992, it bannered an accusation that Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton had worked for the KGB, again aiding the senior George Bush; in Election 2000, when George W. Bush was seeking the White House, the Times pushed allegations that Vice President Al Gore was "delusional"; in Election 2004, to boost the younger George Bush again, it trumpeted attacks on Sen. John Kerry's patriotism.

The Right's Echo Chamber

Once Moon's media empire surfaced these accusations, they would reverberate through the right-wing echo chamber and often into the mainstream press. Usually, the charges spotlighted a purported flaw so severe - such as mental instability or treason - that the Democrat would be disqualified in the eyes of many voters.

---

There's the truth. Please read the whole article here 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WNDL, I't not saying the "Echo chamber effect" doesn't exist (though I'd not heard the term, and must question its real-terms popularity). It's the way you've gone about heavily "highlghting" it as a fact here, that falls under "Original Research" to me. As I said many times - we are not journalists!!!! It might be better for point out "Weight" etc (see below). Also, you have a determined and personal approach that has not been condusive to consensus IMO. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine article.

Some policy:

WP:No Point of View - Undue Weight (Policy) - Always the starting point.

WP:No Original Research (Policy) - Always worth a refresher.

WP:Wikipedia is not a News report (Policy) - We are not journalists.

WP:Let the facts speak for themselves (Policy) - Advises against over-description of facts that are already simple, well-covered and conclusive.

WP:Neutrality and Verifiability (Policy) - Shows how an abundance of passable citations cannot negate fundamental neutrality issues.

It's no great accusation to question Original Research, or to complain that time has been wasted - please don't get so offended. Try and see it from my point of view.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt,

(1) I'm already supporting you on the madrassah angle, I appreciate (and even agree) with your POV.

(2) None of the policies you cite above have anything to do with whether or not "echo chamber" belongs in the article or not, and I have no clue why you cite them.

(3) the "Echo chamber media effect" in this context is notable, relevant, established and supported by thousands of reliable sources.

Perhaps you should (a) analyze the comments and sources I've given you and (b) tell me why you think they are invalid instead of posting policies -- all of which, I can assure you, I am thoroughly familiar with.

Honestly...I'm not sure what you are arguing for/against, or with whom you are arguing. My simple request...don't call it "original research" after you have been shown that it's NOT. Finally, may I ask if you took time to click the links I provided before you said "I'd not heard the term, and must question its real-terms popularity". Please, click here, and examine the explicit query construction I used, and then click the search button and examine 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 of the 1,310 references you will then see, and decide for yourself the question of "real-terms popularity". All I can do is give you the evidence, I can't make you look at it or force you to agree with it. Let's (please) move on? You and I have important things to go off and agree on [ ;-) ]. WNDL42 (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kewords for a Google search would have to be: myung media "echo chamber" -wikipedia. If you type that in you get 986. Click on "page 5" (you must click on the last or latter pages with Google to get the REAL figure) and you get 318. Most of those are blogs. Do the major papers use it? That's what I meant by "real-terms" popularity. It is quite easy to get a seemingly 'high' figure on Google, especially as it trawls so much - including millions of mirrored pages etc.

Surprisingly, if you search for: "echo chamber" -wikipedia: Google gives "about 472,000" results. Click on page 10 and the total become 843! So not hugely used even on its own - and how much outside of the USA, I wonder? As "echo chamber" was orginally to do with sound effects - many people refer to that. There is a band by the name too (so lots of youtube etc). Comparing the 318 "myung media" figure with the 'mixed' total of 843 is interesting, especially with the amount of blogs involved. Perhaps the word "echo chamber" has grown via a kind-of "echo chamber" effect!!!

"Madrassa" is my main issue anyway - it's the only reason I came beack to the Obama articles. You can do what you want with the "echo chamber effect" as far as I'm concerned - I've got too many other pages on my watchlist to bother arguing over something I would normally agree with conversationally! You are right - we must focus on "madrassa". --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:AN3

As per my message at the 3RR noticeboard, it is not appropriate for discussion to take place there. I have removed the discussion after my request to stop, although it is accessible in the page history. I recommend that if you want to continue the discussion you use User talk:B. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Lucy-marie‎ reported by User:Matt Lewis

Hi. I wasn't sure what "/dev/null" meant - so am reaching you here. I have a question and some points regarding the "nominator warned" result, and have written quite a lot. Before I take your time up with them though, can I just ask you this? Does the result have to end with someone being warned? Can you look at it again, because I am (and have) worked on this in good faith. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

/dev/null is explained at its article; I linked it wrongly at the report.

For the answer to your second question please read Wikipedia:AN3#What_might_happen. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel "compromised by the warning". It is only letting you know of the relevant Wikipedia rule.

However, there really wasn't any 3RR violation. There would have had to be more than three reverts to break the rule. I strongly recommend you just carry on and leave this behind. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve noticed on these things there are a number of other 'Results' people put in - like "Not blocked", for example. Why could you not just do that? I have to say that as I'm spending my free time working on this article I'm still really hacked-off with your decision, and particularly how it was made - you did have other options, but clearly thought I was misbehaving at the time. Why aren't you now using the other options?

As for the warning not making a difference in the future, the way I've seen a few admins work now means that I just simply can't accept that. How do you know I won't be compromised? - I genuinely feel compromised now, because I've seen so much of how editors and admins think and work. The mistake you made regarding user:B could easily be made by another admin when seeing the "warning". It's a simple truth on Wikipedia that admins 'take on' so much that they often fail to spent the appropriate time over cases - and pre-existing tags like "nominator warned" (not to mention mischievous editors incorrect "tell-tale" comments, like B's) are irresistible information to admins eager to make a quick judgement.

I’m still genuinely insulted and wound-up by this - as I work compiling data I'm just thinking why the hell am I working in this unprofessional playground? (hence me writing this now - really - what am I doing here?). The user’s signature represents a human being - I honestly wonder what admins think at times. Does the mind get digitised? The stakes are so high on Wikipedia because of the length that some people are prepared to go to - it's a dramatic and time-consuming business sometimes even moving the shortest of distances. Admins should be as fair and un-dramatic as they can possibly be. Nobody should be warned unless they need to be warned - full stop! And saying "deal with it" or "move on" just sounds so trite to someone who's got the shitty end of the stick. I just don't see why you can't re-asses - having seen a 'Not blocked', that is so obviously the decision for this case. I am a proud person and I just can't put up with this, or it's future potential, bearing in mind the edits to UK MP's I'm planning to make.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing: Not to worry about warnings. They're really just information, letting you know what the policies and guidelines are. You can also get the same information by reading some of the policies and guidelines from time to time, as is generally considered a good idea to do. Many people are caught by surprise not knowing about the canvassing guideline, for example. I thought there were four reverts. Maybe there were only three. Maybe it depends on exactly what definition of revert you use, or maybe I made a mistake (in which case I apologize). Anyway, that's in the past. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It’s the past for now (and you've behaved admirably), but things so quickly flare-up on WP. I am working on a unique data-table that I hope will be used on all UK MP's - I'm just still peed off I've got this warning over this - and what I've seen on WP in the past keeps playing on my mind - namely hasty and unbending admin decisions (not so much to me, but certainly to others). There seems to be this foolish toughness ethos with admins of not backing-down too - I just find it so irritating. I recently spent a few disappointing days on Citizendium, which did help me see the ways Wikipedia succeeds a lot more clearly - it's just frustrating to see where WP clearly fails (like the ‘human respect’ ethos that Citizendium makes a point of saying it does so much better). --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's accusing you of not acting in good faith. It seems clear to me that you're trying to maintain and improve the article. Everything's OK. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - as long as everything is equal I'm more than happy to move back to discussion.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Journalism scandals

If you want to go ahead and try merging List of United States journalism scandals and United States journalism scandals again you have my support. Redddogg (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about keeping the renamed list a consice single-liner list, as it's been built?

I've been planning to try again - I've merely been waiting for support to arise: the problem is that the list/s are simply not widely watched. Your above comment now makes a 3:1 consensus for merging, from the 4 editors who have mentioned it - not including the IP address who recently commented against it on the longer list (that would make a current consensus of 3:2, which isn't really 'consensus' - and 3:1 can be argued isn't consensus either). As you know, the renaming approach was recommended in the AfD, but unfortunately by admins who don't want hands-on involvement with it. I've informed the Journalism project of the merge debate this time - something I should have done before I tried it. I don't think the project was informed about the AfD's too. I'm sure I read on an AfD comment that the old list was part of the project - but it it isn't, so I've added the new list, anyway. I don't know how well attended the project is - some are, some aren't. I'll wait to see what interest arises before performing a redirect again. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dev null? Don't be so bloody rude!!

I have just found out want you meant by "Dev/null" - does that mean I can point you to WP:dick like the usual WP nitwit? It's merely made me feel a little worse about admins, especially after the haste with which you dealt with my case. Reading your link would hardly calm someone down would it? Remember why you are here, what's best for Wikipedia, to show basic respect and good faith is my own advice to you. And SLOW DOWN!! Admins are only useful if they concentrate on what they are doing, and actually maintain an underlying respect towards people. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you were offended. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)