User talk:Charles Matthews

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

CorruptionOfEconomics

Thank you so much, Charles, for creating the article page.

If you are interested as a "lead author" there is a compiled version of the text here https://globalartscollective.org/corruption-of-economics.htm#top, or I cand lend you a copy of the second edition, 2022, from Shepheard-Walwyn Ltd.

PS. I just seen the latest version. You are obviously interested...

Janosabel (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be able to get a library copy of the book. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles. Would it be enough for now to make Capitalism As Power into a stub class? Janosabel (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 66

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024

Les Jours and East View Press join the library
Tech tip: Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capital as Power

Hello again. Charles, there is a review of Capital as Power here https://capitalaspower.com/2022/01/owen-lynch-book-review-capital-as-power/

Janosabel (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:UGC, that review is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source. I have found a review by Salvador Santino Regilme that will be useful. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thank you. Janosabel (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What more should I do to make this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Janosabel/sandbox#Capital_As_Power%E2%80%94A_Study_of_Order_and_Creorder into a Stub class entry?

At present it reads like an essay. WP:TONE says that "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone". Below that, under WP:PRONOUN, it says "Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective." So when you write "I", there is a problem.

What I saw in the review was a reference to the Cambridge capital controversy. This is helpful background. If Capital as Power builds on some positions taken in that controversy, there should be a way to explain the argument of the book more simply. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding references to the draft...

I leave it to you to submit when ready...

PS. I don't want to appear to be sitting back, but just can not understand Wikipedia editing jargon.

Still looking for a mentor for a newbie lesson in London. Posted in Teahouse, no offers yet. Janosabel (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could recommend my own book (as co-author) wikibooks:How Wikipedia Works. It is Chapter 6 that explains how to start a new article: wikibooks:How Wikipedia Works/Chapter 6. I should comment that some people may think that "how to start a new article" should be Chapter 1, but really it is quite complicated.

That book is from 2009, and you can find it also as a PDF [1] which is in some ways better. There were in fact fewer acronyms in those days! Charles Matthews (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Janosabel (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Residue class" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Residue class has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 22 § Residue class until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Traditional regional associations of Oxford Colleges

Hello, Charles Matthews. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Traditional regional associations of Oxford Colleges, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlueSquareThing

Good afternoon, Charles.

On 7 January last year, you posted this admonishment in which you warned User:BlueSquareThing (BST) about his editing behaviour, with particular mention of WP:PRESERVE, WP:CITEVAR, and WP:DATEVAR. I realise that the latter two are guidelines only.

In view of recent transgressions by BST, which I have vainly attempted to resolve and rectify, I wrote to the ARBCOM group last night and was contacted by someone called Daniel, who tried to be helpful but is bound by due process. I was effectively left with two options: raise the matter at WP:ANI, which is a free-for-all forum; or contact an individual administrator. As you have already investigated BST's activity, I hope you do not mind me contacting you. As Daniel pointed out, however, it is "totally at your discretion" if you choose to consider the matter, and I will respect your decision.

Since you contacted him last year, BST has mostly concentrated on making "corrections" to cricket infoboxes and external link sections. Although much of that activity may be technically correct, it hardly adds anything of value because the changes are pedantic and essentially amount to nitpicking. They can also be annoying, of course, especially when a sarcastic edit summary is posted. For example, Jason Behrendorff. My point is that the IP was not a vandal and their edit might have been a "first go" at editing, as suggested by "I updated Jason Berendorfs biography". Having been shot down by the unnecessarily rude and sarcastic BST retort, will that IP ever return? Or, like countless others who have been belittled in that manner, have they gone away thinking "why bother"?

Did the IP make a bad edit? No, though perhaps not an ideal one. It seems Jason Behrendorff had a contract with the Jaffna team in 2024 and this may have been extended into 2025 (I don't know the details), so the IP presumably wanted to say the contract did not expire last year and added "-present" to signify that. As the edit was harmless, surely it should have been left alone with a welcome template posted at the IP talk page? That is what any decent editor would have done, but BST seeks control of all things cricket on Wikipedia and newcomers must be made aware of that. Someone else may read this and ask "was it a one-off", and the answer to that is "absolutely not, it was typical".

As you pointed out last year, WP:PRESERVE is editing policy and must be respected. Please see 2012 Bangladesh Premier League, where a whole sub-section was summarily deleted and another rude edit summary was posted in breach of WP:CIVIL. BST insists the incident was not a controversy. Well, it was. If you see the expanded piece I wrote when trying to restore the information, the ESPN reporter's comments confirm that the confusion was not cleared up until a few hours before the match (a semi-final) was due to begin, and such a state of affairs was definitely controversial. Removal of that sub-section was a breach of WP:PRESERVE and, again, a typical BST action carried out with no respect for the editor who wrote the article.

Horace J. Taylor played cricket for Kent in the 1920s, and BST considers himself to be the owner of anything to do with Kent cricket. On Wednesday, another editor made some amendments to the Taylor article, including this correction. Ninety minutes later, BST reverted all three changes and posted this oracular proclamation. The other editor has distanced themself from the issue. I decided to look at the article history and found it was created by the recently-departed AssociateAffiliate (AA) in December 2015. AA set the citation and date styles as cite web and dmy.

AA did not edit the article again, and three years later his cite/date settings were still there. On 2 December 2018, BST suppressed AA's citations, replacing them with his own ugly, non-standard variants; and made no mention of citevar or datevar in his edit summary. You will see that he shifted AA's CricketArchive reference and completely re-hashed it. His statement on Wednesday that the article does not use cite templates (and) citevar specifically asks that they are not added if the article does not already have them present is blatant deceit, his hypocrisy compounded by the later assertion that consistent style used in references should not be changed.

As I said to Daniel, my interest arises from membership of two distinguished cricket research groups, both of which sail through WP:GNG, and there is concern in both about the generally poor quality of cricket coverage on Wikipedia. There are only a few worthy cricket editors and it looks as if one of those, AA, has now followed numerous more and walked away.

I need hardly add that we do not regard BST as one of the better editors in the cricket project: quite the opposite. Someone who tells your readers that cricket matches are played "elven-aside" (no elves, presumably?) is not going to impress us very much, especially as such howlers are typical and are never corrected by BST himself.

As I said above, I will leave this to your discretion, and I will respect whatever decision you make about involvement. Thank you for your time. 81.179.78.92 (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]