User talk:Matthew McMullin

Hi Matthew McMullin! I noticed your contributions to 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! HopsonRoad (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, I noticed that you felt that it would be appropriate to include the statistics of the Bernie Sanders election results in the infobox at 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont. I would ask you to please discuss such an addition at Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Vermont to achieve a consensus, before making that inclusion. Such an inclusion should be based on policy, consensus, or precedent. Please find an example of one of those to support inclusion. Generally a 6% showing by someone who was not even on the ballot doesn't warrant inclusion in the infobox. Note that Sanders's results are discussed in the article, itself. Here's a link to the template for Template:Infobox election. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, I see that you are new to Wikipedia and may not be familiar with Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Edit warring, or Help:Talk pages. You may not be aware that, to date, there was a consensus about including Sanders in the infobox at Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Vermont#Should Sanders be in infobox?, so your edits are against current consensus. You are welcome to add to the discussion to make the case for inclusion, but in the meantime, please do not continue to edit against the current consensus. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned your name at Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Vermont#Editing against consensus?. I invite you to participate in the discussion. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 01:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 00:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Matthew_McMullin reported by User:Bsoyka (Result: ). Thank you. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 01:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=I did not exceed the 3 strikes rule, plus bernie being on the infobox fits in line with the consensus that candidates that receive over 5% are included, if bernie is removed then why is gary johnson included in alaska 2016, or why is nader included in vermont 2000 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew, three things: 1) The reasons that you give above are legitimate things to discuss at the talk page, as you were invited to do, multiple times. 2)You need to copy the {{unblock.... stuff beneath this entry for anyone to look at it. 3) Your block is for only 24 hours, so you can engage at Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Vermont. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Logan Sado requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. – NJD-DE (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you added three lesser-known and lesser-quality photos on the 1968 page? 🐔dat (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not lower quality, they better represent the candidates at the time of their campaigning and do not suffer from the washed deterioration that the old portraits did, I made these edits and now y'all are trying to start an edit war over it, grow up.

Are you aware of WP:NPA? 🐔dat (talk) 12:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Telling you to grow up because you've come to my talk page over photos on wikipedia isn't a personal attack lmfao

"Grow up" is an insult, and you're on shaky ground WP:CIVIL-wise. Also maybe use signatures? 🐔dat (talk) 13:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who removed the initial image uploaded by User:Matthew McMullin to that page, which was a painted portrait of George Wallace, I am wondering why he continues to upload bizarre photos to represent Wallace. A black-and-white photo of Wallace holding a pipe is of lower quality than the existing portrait and I think this user should be barred from editing that page entirely. He seems to have a fixation on it. (User:Bsebor3) 21:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Aontú shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Why are you edit warring against multiple editors to add candidates to the two pages at this time? You falsely state that it is wiki tradition is to keep the original edit which caused the debate to remain in place (diff), but that is not so. Both WP:ONUS and WP:BRD favour longstanding versions over contending ones. Now, they are both recommendations, otherwise things would be too skewed against new edits (Consensus required forces it, but it is used seldom), but generally, it is the person who introduces the new edit who is the one expected to gain consensus for their changes. As WP:ONUS states: the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content — that's you. Please stop edit warring, especially in contentious topic areas like American politics (more on that below). If you wish to discuss this block further with me, please ping me here rather than posting on my talk page). Note that you are still able to edit the article talk pages, which you are welcome to do during this block. Thanks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here:}}.  El_C 06:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthew McMullin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hi, can I state from the get-go that this seems incredibly biased and possibly motivated by personal bias as I looked through the talk pages of everyone else in this "edit war" and not one of them has received a block from editing, might I also add that I DID attempt to get consensus on my edits, and I engaged in the talk page however I as you can see from reading it yourself my points were ignored and I was given no proper response, instead those other editors simply began reverting my work multiple times. Using this it seems incredibly biased to give me a block for simply reverting my edits back to their orignal state & attempting to engage in the discussion but to not give those on the opposing side any sort of punsihment at all.

Decline reason:

No, you can't state that from the get-go. You were edit warring; trying to gain consensus is not sufficient once an edit is disputed - you have to actually gain consensus and stop what you were doing until that has occurred. Now you have two weeks where you can discuss the articles on their talk pages. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthew McMullin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

user:jpgordon it's impossible for me to properly engage in a consensus debate on the talk page because like I said before there is no debate from the opposing side, you can see for yourself in the Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries I cited other world elections and when a rebuttal was made by another user I ensured that I clearly and formally gave my view as to why comparing the 2020 democratic primary to the 2024 republican primary was not a good example, after doing this I received no response to this from user Metropolitan90. how exactly am I meant to gain consensus then as you have said user:jpgordon if there's no rebuttal to my point? to me it would appear from then that user Metropolitan90 either did not have a rebuttal or did not believe continuing their side of the debate was sufficient

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Only you can control what you do and your request should discuss your actions. You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, not tell us what was wrong with it. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthew McMullin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

user:331dot not once in my response to user:jpgordon did I attempt to justify the situation, I'm asking a genuine question as to how I can "gain a consensus" on the talk page when the dialogue I'm receiving is nothing, if I take the discussion to the talk page and the opposing side of the debate does nothing to continue said debate what am I supposed to do other than conclude they've withdrawn themselves from the debate and for me to then put my edit back on?

Decline reason:

Nothing you have said, either in this unblock request or in the others, deals with the simple fact that you were edit-warring. You are, in effect, saying that you think your edit-warring was justified, but there is nothing in the edit-warring policy exempting all editors who think they were right to ignore the policy. JBW (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Have you read the links in the block notice above? Our dispute resolution guidelines are helpful in answering exactly that question. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything in that page you've linked that relates on what to do when 1 side of a dispute does not engage in the discussion --jpgordon, if there is a section and I've missed it I'd appreciate it greatly if you could point out out. Matthew McMullin (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the section entitled WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that if another editor doesn't always respond to anything you post then you can work on the assumption that they have withdrawn their objection is an argument put forward many times in unblock requests. If that were adopted as policy then it would mean that the most persistent and stubborn editor could always get their way, because they could just continue until everyone else had stopped responding. JBW (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what am I meant to do then? if somebody can challenge an edit I make and when it's brought to the talk page they can just sit and do nothing and not engage at all that seems unfair, this isn't about always responding either as I haven't gotten a single reply from user metropolitan90 since, does it not feel unfair to you that in this situation I'm unable to do anything because just 1 other wikipedia user refuses to engage in the discussion about it? Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. El_C 06:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Liberal Party of Canada. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Editor's Barnstar

WONKAKlD (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC) hey Matthew you have been doing pretty good on The 2024 Primary pages and I thought you needed a barnstar I mean everybody needs a barnstar![reply]

I noticed in the revision history that you reached 3RR reverting Expoe34 to change Burgum's pinkish color back to the more peach-like color, stating that there is no consensus for the pinkish color.

When I first added it, I invited editors via the edit summary to weigh in at Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Proposed new color palette to put this issue to rest, and several of them did. A user expressed concern that a peach-like color wouldn't work well on a gradient map, which I seconded, and Expoe34 thirded (if that's even a word).

All of this is to say that we've reached an agreement on this color, and if you disagree, you're more than welcome to let that be known at the relevant talk section. You mentioned that there were multiple separate sections discussing the candidate colors, and you are right. At the section where you mentioned that you'd select a color for Burgum, no editors commented on it except TDKR Chicago 101, who also expressed concerns that the old color could overlap with Haley's too much.

This is a rather small and petty thing to wage an edit war over, and I ask that you use the right mechanisms to express your disagreement going forward. There is in fact a consensus for the color you reverted and against the one you implemented, even if it's only a handful of editors.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Expoe34 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring, as you did at 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matthew McMullin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I kept myself to the 3 revert rule and I did not go over it, it was also my edit that was originally the one reverted which makes it the more unsatisfactory that action was taken against me despite sticking to the guidelines themselves, I had even begun talking on the talk page itself and was hoping to reach an agreement in the future which is now impossible due to my 1 month block

Decline reason:

The three revert rule does not give you permission to revert three times. The three revert rule is a bright line -- breaking it is guaranteed to be treated as edit warring. However, as WP:3RR says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. " You can edit war and never violate 3RR; it's still disruptive to Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Matthew McMullin:, You did go over the 3RR: [1], [2], [3], [4].  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  if you look at the edit history of that edit i made you will know the colours were changed among other things in the middle of another edit war over the status of whether or not perry johnson was a major candidate Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  if the act itself of changing the colours and not hitting the "undo" button on a persons edit is considered a part of the 3 revert then should this not be back-dated to the first time the colours were changed from the existing long standing ones? that would entail opposing parties hitting the 3 reverts first and not me Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand what you're trying to say, but this doesn't change that you reverted the consensus colors four times in one hour. Yes, reverting edits is still edit warring even if these reverts weren't all done by pressing "undo." The opposing parties did not do the same, we arrived at the version you reverted by having a talk page discussion and getting several editors to agree on a new color.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  what I'm saying is that it's unfair to set the start point of what is deemed an undo edit at my edit but not the previous edits beforehand by other users Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think Matthew should be blocked and if so not 1 month what did he do wrong? WONKAKlD (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  others will likely have other viewpoints on the matter but from my own perspective this stemmed from the colors of 2 candidates being changed in a discussion between only 3 wikipedians (note that these alleged new colors still aren't on the candidate colors talk page) I believed this was unfair as the wider community on the page had not enaged in these discussions and the fact that there was 2 other proposed changes so it to me seemed unfair for one proposal to have priority over the others.

  I reverted the edit and explained in a bit of detail why I believed it shouldn't have been changed only for my edit to be reverted, fast forward to the end where my edits has been reverted multiple times and I was then reported by user:Expoe34 which led to me being blocked for a month and unable to continue the discussion we had begun on the talk page.

  to be honest once my 1 month block is over I don't intend to return to editing the 2024 GOP primary page given incidents like this where my additions are reverted, constantly critiqued and punishment is seemingly one-sided makes the whole situation extremely toxic towards me. Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "(note that these alleged new colors still aren't on the candidate colors talk page)" That's not some official 'candidate colors talk page', that's a different talk section entirely, one in which editors stated that they added new colors for new candidates but no one actually discussed any particular proposals in a "support/oppose" format for gauging consensus, unlike the discussion you ignored when making the series of reverts. As for your comments on "my edits have been reverted multiple times" [...] "my additions are reverted, constantly critiqued and punishment is seemingly one-sided makes the whole situation extremely toxic towards me", see WP:NOTTHEM. Expoe34 did not go over the 3RR line and contributed to the relevant discussions on the talk page prior to your edit warring. You went over the 3RR line and not only did you not engage with the discussion at the talk page, you arbitrarily decided that the discussion at the talk page was illegitimate and not a real consensus for some reason. You could've just !voted oppose. I hope you keep that in mind the next time you find yourself in a disagreement when contributing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  respectfully I did not ask for your further input on this so I kindly ask you to leave me alone. Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Matthew, until your block expires, you cannot use this Talk page for anything but to make an unblock request or discuss your block. You cannot use it in the normal fashion where you could discuss articles or work you've done or would do. You cannot help it if another editor (strangely brand new) asks you a question, but had I seen the question before you responded, I would have removed it. Please don't restore this material.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  can you source this? I have never before seen this supposed rule that I am not allowed to edit my own talk page for non appeal questions. Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's pretty much standard practice, although not all administrators enforce it. See WP:PROXYING.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a minor error where the graph compares the election results of 2017 and 2020 but the key states it representing 2020 and 2023. Cheers, Paulpat99 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nice catch! should be fixed now, thanks for telling me Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 October 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello so your map on the 2024 election map is broken because a district in North Carolina keeps disappearing it's the one Repped by Murphy. Why does it disappear? Wollers14 (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just tested the map in inkscape and it works fine for me, it must be something client-side on your end Matthew McMullin (talk) 06:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this, I don't often use Wikipedia and I'm not really sure what the right way to communicate with people here is, so feel free to ignore.

For the 45th Canadian Election, you made a map using the new ridings coloured based on what the election result would have been in 2021 had it used the new ridings here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45th_Canadian_federal_election#/media/File:45th_Canadian_Parliament_Map.svg). For reasons of personal interest I was wondering if you could provide me with that data if at all possible. No pressure, and I understand that this isn't something I'm entitled to in any way, it would just be super helpful if you're down for it.

Sorry to bother you if not, and thanks for your contributions! :) Mcewen reil (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no bother! I made it using this tweet & substack by Kyle J. Hutton as a source: [[5]] Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Mcewen reil (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]