Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Matthew

message: I assume i will be blocked then? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  A generous view of the purpose of an RfC is to help avoid drastic measures.  Jkelly 20:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (basically what I tried to say on Mr Fenton's talk page in response to this). Syrthiss 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I fail to see what i have done wrong except voice an opinion however? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is what we're discussing.  If you recognised that there was something wrong with the behaviour, we wouldn't be here.  The hope is that getting feedback from the community will demonstrate whether the behaviour is within community norms or not.  Jkelly 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nothing to recognize as i was within policys (AGF and CIVIL) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocked?

message: Copied over from the endorsements section
I was unaware i was not allowed to use the administrator userbox, afterall i was under the impression userboxes had no said rule applying to them. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with userboxes and everything to do with falsely claiming to be an administrator.  That you used a userbox as a vehicle to do so is irrelevant.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tbh. i cant even be botherd to talk on this subject, It is to cold and i am to tired. The fact that freedom of speech has been outlawed now just makes things extremley difficult for me. I am just going to let you all talk and take the back seat. I am honured however that i am being watched and that people wish to talk to me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the absurd rhetoric again that I previously warned you about: "freedom of speech has been outlawed now".  You are seriously discrediting yourself.  --Cyde↔Weys 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? You are seriously confusing me. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded discussion 

message: Matthew, all of your responses to people's comments belong here on the talk page, not on the main page.  Thanks, TheronJ 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #:Your see also has any relation, how? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::It suggests a hostile attitude towards administrators who are trying to clean up copyright-violation messes. And if you must comment here, pease start with :#  and the correct number of colons after it (for indenting), so as not to break up the numbering. AnnH ♫ 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::I wasnt hostile, i was extremley calm and cool imo. Also said user was asked to converse he refused. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:If only other users where treat that way. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:You may of failed to notice he violated it !three! times, not once or twice, three times. The fact that he also knows of 3RR as well indicates he would know he did wrong. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::3RR is a community rule, and hardly deserves this hyperbolic rhetoric. The JPStalk to me 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:: Yeah, and I once did 5 reverts in a 15 hour span of time, which came up on my RfA and I was still adminned. If Ed had tried to unblock himself or something you might have an argument, but this is just ridiculous. JoshuaZ 17:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::: Your forgting the fact that it was not you i am talking about. You where also not an admin then. Edward did three rvs in less them 24 hours, furthermore 3RR is something he "preaches" and he should know him self thus not to violate it, he did however. he was reported once, then twice and then three times. he did not heed the fact he had been reported for one or two or three vios, he just get racking up his reverts. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::An cached version of a page does not constute fair use as google does not cache those images. i did not doubt there was a site there. Re: An act of war, if you had reverted it meant you would of turned it into an edit war.. thus an act of war. I also tried helping you by pain stakingly going frame by frame thru a scene of stargate just to get roughly the same image as you so as it qualified as fair use. I however did not have to waste my time, i however did. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::: Matthew, no one is saying that you are not a productive editor, and many of your image related edits clearly come from painstaking and patient work. This RfC is not about that. It is about attempting to deal with/discuss other problems you have had and through that discussion hopefully lead to more productive editing for everyone. JoshuaZ 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::: But don't you see, you did not assume good faith but doubting that the website was down for maintenance. I know that the google search doesn't prove that that was where the image came from, but it proved that the site was real, and if the site is real but you can't access it, isn't it logical that the guy telling you it is down for maintenance might be telling the truth? I provided the google search not to prove fair use but to prove to you that the site was real, as I said on your talk page. You are right, you did not have to waste your time taking another screencap, all you had to do was assume good faith and wait until the morning, if, by then the site was not back up then I would have been perfectly fine with you changing the picture. Instead you decided to continue assuming that I was lieing for some reason (if I was willing to lie why didn't I just say the image was taken by me?) and you allowed it to escalate beyond a normal disagreement. Konman72 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::::: Patience is not one of my many virtues to tell you the truth, I also did give that website one hour (Fact is they should get a better web host if they cant keep it online). I also did not doubt the website was real (having done a WHOIS on it prior to seeing a cached result) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::: PS: Notice here how i never say that i doubted it was down for maint. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::::Then why change the image on the basis of not having source information? If you don't doubt the reality of the site and don't assume bad faith on my part then there is no reason to take it down. 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::::: Because it was'nt online in the present and there was no verifiable way of confirming the images existance in the present Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::::::::: That is why we have a policy on assuming good faith. I said it had a source and that it was legitmate, you should have believed me. Instead you assumed bad faith and we ended up in a conflict. Konman72 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::::::: There was no bad faith involved, it wasnt alive then. We exist in the present not the past. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #: I didn't say it was taken down permanently. I said it would be back up. Should we constantly monitor the author's webpages so that if the page is down for maintenance then we must immediately remove all images sourced to it? The funny thing is that even if it was down permanently it should not warrant the deletion of the image it produced. They were still the author of the image, we don't need it to remain there for that to be a fact. We live in the present, not the past ;-). Anyway, this isn't about our conflict, I provided my summary and argued your replies. You may reply to this but unless it is totally off the wall in some way I will refrain from comment so that this discussion can get back on track. Konman72 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion belongs here 

message: :#:Your see also has any relation, how? Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #::It suggests a hostile attitude towards administrators who are trying to clean up copyright-violation messes. And if you must comment here, pease start with :#  and the correct number of colons after it (for indenting), so as not to break up the numbering. AnnH ♫ 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::I wasnt hostile, i was extremley calm and cool imo. Also said user was asked to converse he refused. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 20:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Musical Linguist

message: :#:If only other users where treat that way. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to JPS

message: :#:You may of failed to notice he violated it !three! times, not once or twice, three times. The fact that he also knows of 3RR as well indicates he would know he did wrong. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 16:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #::3RR is a community rule, and hardly deserves this hyperbolic rhetoric. The JPStalk to me 16:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:: Yeah, and I once did 5 reverts in a 15 hour span of time, which came up on my RfA and I was still adminned. If Ed had tried to unblock himself or something you might have an argument, but this is just ridiculous. JoshuaZ 17:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::: Your forgting the fact that it was not you i am talking about. You where also not an admin then. Edward did three rvs in less them 24 hours, furthermore 3RR is something he "preaches" and he should know him self thus not to violate it, he did however. he was reported once, then twice and then three times. he did not heed the fact he had been reported for one or two or three vios, he just get racking up his reverts. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to JoshuaZ

message: :#::An cached version of a page does not constute fair use as google does not cache those images. i did not doubt there was a site there. Re: An act of war, if you had reverted it meant you would of turned it into an edit war.. thus an act of war. I also tried helping you by pain stakingly going frame by frame thru a scene of stargate just to get roughly the same image as you so as it qualified as fair use. I however did not have to waste my time, i however did. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #::: Matthew, no one is saying that you are not a productive editor, and many of your image related edits clearly come from painstaking and patient work. This RfC is not about that. It is about attempting to deal with/discuss other problems you have had and through that discussion hopefully lead to more productive editing for everyone. JoshuaZ 17:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::: But don't you see, you did not assume good faith but doubting that the website was down for maintenance. I know that the google search doesn't prove that that was where the image came from, but it proved that the site was real, and if the site is real but you can't access it, isn't it logical that the guy telling you it is down for maintenance might be telling the truth? I provided the google search not to prove fair use but to prove to you that the site was real, as I said on your talk page. You are right, you did not have to waste your time taking another screencap, all you had to do was assume good faith and wait until the morning, if, by then the site was not back up then I would have been perfectly fine with you changing the picture. Instead you decided to continue assuming that I was lieing for some reason (if I was willing to lie why didn't I just say the image was taken by me?) and you allowed it to escalate beyond a normal disagreement. Konman72 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::::: Patience is not one of my many virtues to tell you the truth, I also did give that website one hour (Fact is they should get a better web host if they cant keep it online). I also did not doubt the website was real (having done a WHOIS on it prior to seeing a cached result) Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::: PS: Notice here how i never say that i doubted it was down for maint. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::::Then why change the image on the basis of not having source information? If you don't doubt the reality of the site and don't assume bad faith on my part then there is no reason to take it down. 18:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::::: Because it was'nt online in the present and there was no verifiable way of confirming the images existance in the present Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #::::::::: That is why we have a policy on assuming good faith. I said it had a source and that it was legitmate, you should have believed me. Instead you assumed bad faith and we ended up in a conflict. Konman72 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #:::::::::: There was no bad faith involved, it wasnt alive then. We exist in the present not the past. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: #: I didn't say it was taken down permanently. I said it would be back up. Should we constantly monitor the author's webpages so that if the page is down for maintenance then we must immediately remove all images sourced to it? The funny thing is that even if it was down permanently it should not warrant the deletion of the image it produced. They were still the author of the image, we don't need it to remain there for that to be a fact. We live in the present, not the past ;-). Anyway, this isn't about our conflict, I provided my summary and argued your replies. You may reply to this but unless it is totally off the wall in some way I will refrain from comment so that this discussion can get back on track. Konman72 18:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Konman72

message: #:I fail to see how that is a threat. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 09:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to A Man in Black's outside view

message: # After looking at Matthew's behaviour and commenting on the matter that SergeantBolt is refering to - I am also concerned about the amount of Wikilayering that is going on. My main concern is that Matthew is only able to look at situations in an entirely literal fashion and seems totally unable to grasp context. --Charlesknight 21:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do look at things literaly though, how else should i look at it :\? Matthew Fenton (Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Charlesknight conversation

message: ::What article do you refer to.. ? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems If necessary I'm sure an admin can temporarily undelete the talk page if you need your memory refreshed.--Crossmr 16:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, good good. However i dont rememebr talking on the talk :\. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a request to AMIB to restore the talk page temporarily. Once we've both viewed it, the exchange can be copied to the RfC.--Crossmr 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Np. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was restored quickly. I found the first statement to be aggressive and insulting, and the other two to be uncivil. Whoever was kind enough to undelete the talk page should probably protect it, it doesn't need to be edited during the RfC.--Crossmr 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It has more encyclopeadia value then you yourself do, and provides information which is related to 'Trek." - While i understand you may find taht insulting (I didnt intend fir you to be insulted) it was just a comparison because in the real world the artile probably would as it would be viewable by peopl from around the world, trek fans or not. You your self have not claimed notability and so it litteraly does have more encyclopeadic value then your bio would have. Either way, pelase dont feel insulted. Was'nt my intention. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But its an unnecessary point to raise, which is why its insulting and uncivil. I complained about the page and in defense you felt the need to disparage my value, rather than defend the page on its merits.--Crossmr 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am sorry. But theres not much i can do but apoligise. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Outside view by Crossmr