This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mrmatiko. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Based on the subject matter there are likely to be plenty of online sources. For something like this you need to be able to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources carefully, bias is also likely to be an issue. A good source would be a book or academic paper about Adblocking software and the law. News articles about lawsuits relating to adblocking software would also be useful.
I wasn't hugely successful but here are some things that may be useful that I picked up from the above search links:
I suggest that you work on integrating any information about legal status of adblocking programs in to the Ad filtering article. That article could certainly use some neutralising and reorganisation if you feel up to it. Only try to split it off in to another article if the size of the section on law takes up more than 1/2 the article. One thing to remember is to always use an edit summary so that people know what you've done, I also try to make several smaller (a couple of sentences) edits, rather than one huge edit because if someone disagrees with something they can easily revert only the part that is a problem; but it is entirely up to you how you edit. --Mrmatiko (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Told
You told me writing articles would be fun.......... bur some misunderstanding and that just left me with an epic headache.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't be discouraged, we all make mistakes. I see that Thine Antique Pen (talk·contribs) has offered to help you with the red links at Pseudotomoxia[1]. The most important thing is not to take any constructive criticism that people give personally; other editors are just trying to help, they aren't arguing with you. If you want something different to do, I can find you an article to work on and then give you some feedback on your edits; just let me know. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
When I noticed you say that you had thousands of articles ready to create, I'll admit I was a bit concerned. Now I've seen them though, I'm impressed. --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm impressed. If you ever need help with something (though you seem to have got the hang of things pretty quickly) then just let me know. --Mrmatiko (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
As they have both turned in to a redirects, I suggest that you go back to the history and copy the text in to the main Chlorite article under the heading ==Chloritization== and to the Kaolinite article under the heading ==Kaolinization== because this will improve the sourcing of both articles while also adding content. If you want feedback before you publish and article, you can use the article wizard and submit it to Articles for creation. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 1747 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention.
We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial.
Sorry Deathlaser, I tend not to create articles (I've written 6 in the past year and a bit). If you fancy doing something other than article creation, I'm working on improving the Forestry Commission article and the "Recreation" section could do with a significant overhaul, it reads like an advert and is poorly sourced. If you are desperate to create articles then have a look through the Requested articles and see if there is something that you fancy working on, I suggest that you pick something that interests you and start working in your sandbox. I can help you find some sources if you pick something good. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Despite those 3 e-mails I got, I won't say who from, I have decided not to cleanstart. It is not worth it just to become an admin. I don't want to work in completely different fields, and for all I care, I just want to keep doing what I do now and I will have to accept the fact I can never be an admin/I don't have the skills to be one.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you've decided to stick around and look forward to your future contributions. Adminship is not meant to be the purpose of Wikipedia, if you need the tools and can demonstrate to the community that you would be able to use them properly then someone will nominate you. Personally I wouldn't consider a request for adminship because I don't need the tools (and can't see a need for them at this time).
I think that it is a shame that so many editors spend so much of their time stressing over a few extra buttons when there are many fun things that anyone can do to make the sum of all knowledge available to everyone, no matter where they are or what level of education they have. --Mrmatiko (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry for taking it all out on you guys and now I know a cleanstart will not help. But I do know what will help, a good anti-bullying site that doesn't ask for your details.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You're obviously pretty knowledgable on the FC. Around 10 years ago I bought a book on the history of the FC schools. It was pretty boring so I sold it on eBay, but in the last few years I've often thought that a section on the schools would be a useful addition to the FC page. I can't remember the exact title, but it was written by a chap called Geoff Waygood. Could I suggest this as a possible project for you? Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not actually that knowledgeable about the Forestry Commission (or at least I wasn't...) That does sound like something worth including in the article & I'll see if I can find either this book or some other information about the schools. Thanks for the tip. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Mrmatiko. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Not at all, go ahead. I noticed that you'd created it (nice job by the way) but just forgot to remove it from the list. If you do anything else on the list I won't complain, just take it off once it's done. --Mrmatiko (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey
Hi,
I've refounded Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey and I saw you were a member of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey. I was wondering, as you are a on the Participants List weather on not you would like to help improve more Surrey articles and make Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey and active Wikiproject again.
I hope you will come and help make Wikipedia: Wikiproject Surrey an active Wikiproject again.
P.S. Either reply or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey on my talk page.
Mishari bin Saud
Since the mid-April, I have been waiting your decision over the article, Mishari bin Saud. However, today another user (Ism Schism) published this article. It is very strange. If the first article should have been reviewed, how is it possible to publish this article without any review process?
I have realized that he copied the article using the link on my talk page. Is it fair? Can you please help me or give me any link that I can use to tell my anger? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
My gratitude for correcting me in my decision. I'll try to stick on to the objective of the project that I am involved in.
Thanks, tausif(talk)18:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Alizée
Let's chat about proposed changes to the "Personal life" section of the Alizée article in the section of its Talk page dedicated to that topic. Thanks for your kind attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.74.194 (talk) 18 June 2012
Hello again. I've tried to address your concerns about proposed changes to the "Personal life" section of the Alizée article. When you have the opportunity, please read the new germane material on the Talk page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.67.3 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I noticed, I've been quite busy this weekend and there is quite a lot for me to read & respond to. I should have a full answer for you (probably lots of specific answers interleaved with your comments) by the end of the week. ---- Mrmatiko (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
hello. I appreciate you taking the time to address these concerns on my talk page. I agree basically.
And the problem is that I DID take it to talk, well before. Many of the reverting editors simply have not. And don't care. This specific issue that they're reverting is not necessarily exactly the same as the other, per se. The point is that WP policy and recommendation is simply to NOT revert stuff that one does not like, even if the stuff is accurate, sourced, and good. Editors seem to not care about that, simply for personal tastes or hang-ups, and frankly I'm tired of it. Suppressing elaborations and facts, for weird neurotic reasons, that have nothing to do with fact or accuracy or references, is NOT wise or warranted or recommended. I hope you see my point there. And then a mob mentality, knee-jerk style, happens, where the actual merits are not even really considered, but just "well most people are ganging up on him, so he must be wrong". LOL. Fail... That's stuff I can't stomach either. Nor would I countenance some editor following me around from one article that had nothing even to do with that. I "warn" against that, per my right, to NOT be stalked. If that's what you're referring to.
Trust me, sir, I'm a very good and conscientious editor. With refs, clean-ups, elabs, etc. I don't like my contributions dissed or second-guessed or removed over shallow invalid reasons. Yes, consensus is a WP guideline too, but that only goes so far after a while, especially when you know that the "consensus" is really just based on NON-WP policies, whims, mob psychosis, hastiness, and shallowness. What I put in is valid, accurate, good-faith, true, sourced, and clearer. No good WP reason to remove. It's that simple. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Forestry Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polecats (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mrmatiko. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
