User talk:MattUK

Welcome to my talk page, please leave comments if you need to, if you do please get them in the right order and put them at the bottom of the page following the correct convention.

African American culture

Hi, was wondering why you reverted my edit to the above article. I was hoping it would reduce the vandalism attempts on that section by using the definition of AAVE from its main article. --Twigletmac 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The small extra line and a half at the bottom of the page seems like it puts in some useful comments, adding in a few words that people will recognise and the fact that is largly a teen (and the uneducated) rather than including the more business orientated members of the AA community

OWOG /"Eliminated" post signature

Please remember to sign your name with four consecutive tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will put your user name and the time/date at the end of your post.

Putting someone elses name at the end of a post looks like impersonation and will likely get you blocked. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.

If you want more info on using Wikipedia:

If you've got a bit more time then Welcome is the way to go. SmithBlue 04:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that I didnt realise it was that easy which is why I had been copying the formatting from the previous details and changing it to fit me, unfortunatly due to getting distratced on the phone while doing that one I forgot to change the name over, and hopefully this works MattUK 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)MattUK[reply]

I'm new to this too - its beyond most new users ability to do any lasting damage other than irritate people. Which you may already have noticed happens a bit with experienced editors too. As my Greek friends like telling me to do: Enjoy! SmithBlue 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Verifiability

Aside from the article discussion on The Commons Speaker, which isn't the venue for a general discussion on the merits of one kind of source above another, I'll have a shot at answering your point:

A "source" is only the identity of a person in a particular journalistic meaning.
The source of the MPs expenses was the disk. For the purposes of verifiability we're not interested in who took the information or who gave or sold it to the Daily Telegraph. The content of the source is not disputed. The content is good and verified as to it containing actual receipts (although it seems the receipts do not necessarily verify an expense claim, as some MPs have said that particular receipts contain line items for both claimed and non-claimed goods).
The Daily Mail article says its source is a meeting between the Queen and Prime Minister. And so the question of verifiability. Look at ["this quote"] from John Major: "Prime ministers always see the queen absolutely privately. No one else is there, other, of course, than the corgis. If they had ever been bugged, the Russians would have known all our secrets". So to be verifiable we must have - at the very least - some kind of convincing statement about how anyone could have been privy to that conversation. Just think about it: the Queen and the Prime Minister knew the content of their discussion, so they would know if their conversation had been accurately reported. If they were overheard, they would know of a security breach hugely more significant than the report of the Queen being "deeply troubled". And because the implications of what *could* be discussed in such a meeting being overheard are difficult to overstate. Furthermore corgis don't talk, so the candidates for someone overhearing a conversation which is kept so secure being identified and prosecuted are extremely high.

Don't you see that any claim by the Daily Mail about the content of the Queen's audience with the Prime Minister has a very low verifiability rating. And the standard of verifiability for a biographic article about a controversial issue concerning a living individual is extremely high. You could be personally sued for slander by publishing this content by The Daily Mail, for misrepresenting their article; by The Guardian, for misrepresenting their article, by Nick Clegg for misrepresenting his position, by Michael Martin for the false allegation.

Anyway, it's down to you. (^_^) Tsuchan (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alimony article

Please have a look at the new and improved article and see if it addreses your earlier concertn.

PTiger1985 (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North/South divide

The recent deletion of a section from North-South_divide_(England) is discussed in the article's talk page Govynn (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to save the world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2011

Bande à part vs Band of Outsiders

In light of your previous participation in titling issues, the discussion at Talk:Bande à part (film)#Requested move may be of interest.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]