User talk:Mattjs/Archive 1

My alias:

User:220.240.58.190

And Talkbacks with decent editors: ;-)

De-linking Sex tourism from Child prostitution

Thanks for taking the initiative in fixing the link under Prostitution of children. Can you fix the dead link that this introduced using the bold instructions on Talk:Sex tourism?

Incidentally, there is no rule that Wikipedia needs to be inoffensive, but there is a rule that says Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. / edgarde 18:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of talk page

One more thing. Issues with link on the Prostitution of children article are probably best discussed on Talk:Prostitution of children, where, as far as I can tell, you have never commented. I don't know that any of the readers of Talk:Sex tourism edit Prostitution of children. / edgarde 19:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd personal request on Talk:Sex tourism

You're not logged in so I cannot assume you are User:Mattjs. However, the following question is answered easily.

lay bare your politcal, cultural and religious biases upon commenting as I had asked and I reiterate my request fopr you to do so now!?

No. It's not relevant here, nor is it required by Wikipedia. We're here to discuss edits, not to subject ourselves upon command to personal scrutiny from anonymous persons. / edgarde 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But that is a shame. Our discussion there is then at an end as we cannot investigate further any prejudices or biases that may influence you own objectivity nor mine. My only further comment is at the bottom of the talkback, following the line of your own argument to its natural conclusion, the merger of "holiday fun in the sun" with Sex Tourism and I await with much interest your response. You also have the opportunity to take adavantage - you could agree at which point I may then be obligated to follow through and perform the merger work or most of it, or disagree, and then you will you not be able to continue maintain a position against paedophilia being split from the article. Either way one of us will get backed into a corner and will have to make a decision and I like to follow things through so I will ensure that a decision is not just made but that it is also executed. Who is your senior editor? Looks like I am going to be writing my first full article: I just don't know which one!? :-) Regards, Mattjs 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the game-playing? I don't understand the rule-making and attempted manipulation. I think I've explained everything to your satisfaction, but now you object to my not exposing myself to manipulation and game-playing. I think this is unreasonable on your part, and I don't see the purpose.

That said, you're more than welcome to create a new page for Child sex tourism and paedophilia (or whatever you're planning on calling it — I took that title from your link in Prostitution of children). / edgarde 23:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Prostitution in Thailand

I see from the discussions above that your comment at the Talk page follows something of a pattern. I suggest that you master your obsession with the sex and other characteristics of editors, and make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (oh, and do a little basic and obvious research, such as looking at the user pages of editors before making unfounded assumptions about them).

As for your main point: people may well want locations for Thailand's sex trade; we're not in the business of pandering to their desires. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen your remarks to Konstantin, in which not only are you uncivil, but you betray a crucial ignorance of Wikipedia's attitude to editors whose first language isn't English. And as your initial question to him was far from clear, I'm not surprised that he didn't understand it.)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken but I generally do make a comment unless I am involved in a series of corrections of my own insertions after I have made a change. I still feel the first line intro to this article should be rephrased or removed. Mattjs 08:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also i would draw distinctions betwwen unciviliy and identifying possible sources of POV and POV edits including by editors themselves who are by no means immune. Articles about sex and particularly prostitution will inevitabley be colored by both the cultural prejudices and sex of the editors as the tone you refer to in discussions of the article above makes clear... Mattjs 09: 01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Other editors, not being psychic, don't know that you're just tidying up after yourself. The edit summary is a courtesy to them.
The first sentence is poorly written; simply removing it removes the correctly wikified state of the lead, though. rather than just removing it, it needs to be replaced or rewritten.
Your distinction between incivility and demanding to know the sex, etc., of the editor with whom you're in dispute, together with insinuations that their opinion is merely a function of their biology, is not one that I (or most Wikipedia editors) would recognise. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take it personally, I didn't use the term "ediots" you did. While most editors might agree with you I think most zoologists, sociologists, archiologists, paleoanthropologists etc. might not: homo sapiens aka "the naked ape" only recently came down from the trees (in evolutionary time) and airs of editorial infalibility just dont wash with the facts of a species that is set to extinguish itself from the planet through anthropogenically caused gloabal warming by the end of the current century. Is sex an issue then? Certainly! There is too damn fucking much of it going on! at least of the procreative kind - 6 billion too many to be precise - on a planet whose carrying capacity has already been amply exceeded and is set to take a huge dive over coming decades. SO YES: if you come to my home page, editor or not, female or not, with airs of infallibility to post, I will happily demand that you should be neutered before doing so in future!!! ;-) Mattjs 12:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in trying any longer to reason with you. If you don't stop your offensive and silly comments on talk pages, I will block you from editing for a period. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it funny how editors selectively edit?

One says "there is no rule that Wikipedia needs to be inoffensive" and another quotes "uncivil"!?