User talk:Mathew5000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Mathew5000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:F1030001.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:F1030001.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:F1030007.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:F1030007.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Strasbourg Cathedral[edit]

You might have an opinion on this :Talk:Notre-Dame_de_Strasbourg#Move_to_Strasbourg_Cathedral --Matthead 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:F1030017.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:F1030017.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

MY recent revert[edit]

"2006-06-18" was changed to "2006-05-16".

I'm no expert, but I was reverting lots of vandlaism at the time, and it seemed like vandalism to me - changing a source after it's been posted. :SHawkerTyphoon 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Canada and confederation[edit]

Canada was not formed as a federal union, but as a confederation, which is why they called it that.

Provinces in Canada do retain a right of secession. There is some dispute among political scientists as to whether this was historically intended -- provinces after Confederation spoke of it (e.g. the Nova Scotia Liberal Party). However, the Supreme Court reference on the Clarity Act suggests that they do.

I will continue to make edits.

I used six provinces as in the six that were part of Canada within seven years of Confederation. I suppose that was somewhat inaccurate. My apologies.

Help desk[edit]

Hi! I've made a brief response to your help desk query. Hope it helps. EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 17:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Conseil National de la Résistance[edit]

I'll put the article on my copyediting list if you like- it's pretty empty at the moment anyway. The main content of the article is pretty good. Is there an image you think would be suitable? I'll have a look for one just in case.

Nice job on the article!

EvocativeIntrigue TALK has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Kind regards,

EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Response at Talk:Conseil National de la Résistance. --Mathew5000 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Bon: I've finished my first major copyedit of the article, and would appreciate your feedback- especially making sure I've maintained the gist of what the French article says. It wasn't axctually that difficult, you did a great job translating it, so thanks! EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Conseil National de la Résistance
Sorry about the tardy reply, I saw I had new messages and only saw the Esperanza newsletter and notices! You're probably right about the use of "arrest" rather than kidnap, which is perhaps a little POV!
If there's anything else you've translated and want another eye to pass over, please feel free to drop me a message- your translation made it a most pleasurable experience!
EvocativeIntrigue TALK | EMAIL 23:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacob Luitjens[edit]

Trans you requested is complete.Bridesmill 02:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


To quote you from the science reference desk:

The paper by Guinot mentions the Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Services. That organization seems to have changed its name to the Federation of Astronomical and Geophysical Data Analysis Services [1] but it retained the same acronym.

Mmm, there just might be a slight error in the Guinot paper. Have you read somewhere that the changed their name? -- Koffieyahoo 07:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, try their own site at ? It uses the longer full name and the original acronym. Go figure...

Re:Petit Montrouge[edit]

C'est excellent ! Je ne suis pas très fort en anglais mais il me semble que c'est exactement ça. Bravo. --NicoNico 20:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merci! --Mathew5000 01:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I made this change since there are 96 departements in metropolitian france. If you include the DOM/TOM (oversease departements) the total is 102. So at no point is the number 100.

Chaine de Steiner[edit]

Hello, a Chaine de Steiner is a finite chain of inscribed circles. In english, the name is Steiner's porism (I suppose).

See Chain of Inscribed Circles and Steiner's Porism.

But my sentence Cette figure possède de nombreuses propriétés et est le point de départ d'autres figures de géométrie plane telles que les cercles d'Archimède, les cercles d'Apollonius, la chaîne de Steiner is not really correct and I shall change it. HB

I want to get involved[edit]


I want to get involved in the cleanup processes and spend my time helping Wikipedia. I noticed you are involved in Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion section regularly. I don't know if I have to be an Admin to participate there or not. (Wikipedia:Cleaning_department page simply notes that volunteers list themselves here for a particular day in the month and pledge to help with the cleaning of a page on that day. It doesn't state if they have to be Admins or not.)

Please advise.

hujiTALK 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Independence Day NZ[edit]

I believe New Zealand should be on the list with the date it achieved dominion status. Even though the true Independence process was slow and gradual and perhaps that should be noted. Excluding it from the list seems to imply it is not independent. However I am not an expert in this area of history so I won't revert your edit but leaving it off the list entirely is misleading. (Boxyisaturtle 19:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

I replied at Talk:Independence Day#New Zealand. --Mathew5000 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions in HTML comments[edit]

Hi, I think you should ask questions in talk pages rather than in HTML comments, where very few people will see them:

Apokrif 22:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, point well taken. --Mathew5000 22:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Accented characters in Windows XP[edit]

Thanks very much for your response to my Help Desk query[2]. That is much appreciated. I figured there was some relatively easy generalized way to type the accents under Windows. It's surprising this isn't better known; I'm sure lots of people would use it if they knew about it. --Mathew5000 21:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help out -- I'd hate to type accents anyway else. Perhaps my answer (edited of course) could be placed in some wp guide. Got any ideas? --Zantastik talk 08:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anders Thomas Jensen[edit]

Hey Mathew5000, I translated the article on Anders Thomas Jensen you requrested. --Mfrosz 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing on Charter of Rights[edit]

Please stop. Saying you were just changing the source was a sneaky way of deleting the historical interpretations that offend your version of events. Besides, a principle of academic works is to prefer more recent material to outdated ones. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To put this another way, I've been trying to write articles. You know, actually write them, not just snipe at them from talk pages. I've expanded R. v. Butler recently and started R. v. Krymowski. But instead of just working on new things I have to check my watchlist every two seconds because I'm worried you'll be deleting entire passages out of that one article just because you personally don't agree with the interpretations of others, or because you've launched your latest five-paragraph rant saying that a single word in the article is wrong. Please stop. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What you're not quite seeing is that there are objective and subjective views flying around. You tried to find a source justifying your view, which excluded the others. I can go get a separatist speech and replace the reference with that, and exclude both your view and mine. The point is that the article now uses a source that covers a few views. I did not ask you to stop editing the article. I asked you to stop making it your personal political science essay. Those small little edits that you fill talk pages explaining don't really bother me. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing that annoys me is your complete and total refusal to compromise. I just tried, by adding your material and reference in addition to mine instead of by replacing it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 05:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Replied on user's Talk page.--Mathew5000 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I gave consideration to your edit by incorporating it into the article. By POV I meant not that material was added that was biased, but that material was taken away; an omission is in act. Incidentally you have odd timing. I just logged in a minute ago, and had no new messages then. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 15:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
We could try Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know if we can still work together, as our overlapping interests, and in general the need to improve the quality of Canadian law articles, require it. You have said the Charter article is on the whole of excellent quality. In turn a good thing I will say about you is that you have a good ability at digging up case law and other resources. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Us000872795-002.PNG listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Us000872795-002.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cliffb 04:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


I made no such redirect and the title of the film given in the article is incorrect. Badagnani 23:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 6 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Callow, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nazi apologist?[edit]

Mathew, I would hate you to think ill of me, or rely on twisted misinterpretions of my words. Please loook in the Humanities Archive for February 1 of this year, item 1.3, where in response to a question about the relationship between Neo-Nazis and the Japanese Nazi Party I gave the following answer, quoted here verbatim;

Nazism has taken shape around the oddest of paradoxes, Robin: a movement that was essentially inward looking and violently racist has transcended both race and nation. Where there is bitterness and discontent, there is National Socialism. Putting the common hatred of all things Jewish to one side, the issue of race , and even the concept of Aryanism has become largely irrelevant. Of all the European nations none suffered more greatly at the hands of the Nazis than Russia; and yet there is now a vigorous and violent Hitlerite movement in that country. There is no reason why the Japanese Nazis should have any connection with any other Nazi movements, though I feel sure that they would co-operate and ally with one another, if they felt this to be necessary.

As I say I had to draw this to your notice because I value your good opinion and that of my fellow editors. I care not what the other editor (I can't even bear to use his signature) does, and will not respond directly to his provocations. His relentless hate campaign against me has been going on for some time now. He posted an apology recently on my talk page for his persistent personal attacks (Mea Maxima Culpa), but I always suspected this to be worthless. I hope this clarifies matters. Clio the Muse 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Mathew5000 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for some unsolicited testimonial to the credit of Clio the Muse: lately I've taken to fielding queries on the Reference Desks, and have often been enlightened and impressed by the quality, scope, and swiftness of response that characterizes her activity there. But let one thing be clear: Clio's contributions in matters dealing with Nazism are highly reputable, conscientious, dignified, articulate, and representative of what I consider the finest of humanistic values. I would be proud to write as she does (if I only could!), and am appreciative of her contributions which I hope are widely read. I note this as a professional archivist of the Holocaust (translating and editing material for Internet publication) and a dedicated upholder of integrity on Wikipedia's pages and Reference Desks. -- Deborahjay 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

A foodstuff in Slovak[edit]

Mathew! After I got over a severe outburst of LOL, I'm here to tell you that your "Rosetta Stone" suggestion (of toggling between languages in online EU legal documents containing the phrase for tranlsation) is not only brilliant, but has heretofore unrecognized potential. I can hardly wait till I'm coherent enough to report this back to my fellow copyeditors and translators on the various listserv e-forums on which I participate (one of which having generated this query, after all). Prepare to be acknowledged in the intercontinental ether!  :-) -- Thanks, Deborahjay 22:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I read your recent comments on [3] and [4]. Would you be interested in WikiProject LGBT studies?100110100 13:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer but I am not interested. --Mathew5000 17:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazing Race[edit]

Hey: both the official website [5] and the Finale episode state the distance as 72,000 miles. I do believe that that figure is greatly exaggerated, but there is no way to prove another number otherwise, as there is no citation to the 50,000 mile figure on the Race 5 page. Also, my table was just something that I dumped on my own talk page when I was beginning the page. Sorry if it confused! --HansTAR 19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay; thanks.--Mathew5000 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

European Microstates[edit]

Hello- I'm generally trying to gauge interest in potentially starting a WikiProject on European Microstates. I noticed you've been involved a little bit with the San Marino article. Just thought I'd ask if you would maybe be interested in participating in such a venture. If not, that's quite alright - I'm just trying to get a feel for if its feasible to start one or not. Thanks! matt91486 05:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. --Mathew5000 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Category talk:Films with numbers in their titles[edit]

Hi, you say at Category talk:Films with numbers in their titles that it is a stupid category, but you do keep adding articles to it. :) I put this category up for deletion here. Garion96 (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

hey matthew, come to the deletion debate for this category! you've added a huge number of films to this category and it is fleshing out quite nicely CarlosRodriguez 15:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

About the article Intervener[edit]

Dear Mathew5000:

I had been planning to improve this article for the past couple of weeks, for the reasons which I set forth in this message on the talk page of User:PullUpYourSocks. In the interest of clarifying my intentions and encouraging cooperation, I want you to know what I plan on doing with the article, at least initially:

  1. Adding a section on U.S. civil practice with regard to intervention, which is considerably different from Canadian law & practice
  2. Deleting all references to U.S. practice in the section on Canadian practice
  3. Letting either you, PullUpYourSocks, or anyone else with knowledge of Canadian law improve the section on Canadian practice (because my knowledge of Canadian law is pretty limited)
  4. Retitling the article as Intervention (law) or something similar
  5. Adding the page to the template {{Civil procedure (United States)}}.

I know we are supposed to be bold in altering articles, but I wanted to avoid a situation where I make a bunch of changes, only to have them reverted or start an edit war. Please let me know what you think, as PullUpYourSocks has not gotten around to answering my message yet. --Eastlaw 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds generally reasonable. --Mathew5000 06:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I made the changes I planned on making. I think it looks pretty good. I covered most of the basics of U.S. civil practice that a first-year law student would need to know. I thank you for your help and cooperation in this; I don't like to make such sweeping and drastic changes to articles without at least some prior consultation, even where I really know the subject matter well. --Eastlaw 20:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Flexitarian article[edit]

Thanks for deleting that "critique" thing. I wanted to do it myself but couldnʻt find the right words.--Laualoha 03:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; also have a look at Talk:Pollotarianism for a few interesting (though as yet unsourced) points. --Mathew5000 04:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Most Serene Republic of San Marino[edit]

I would have thought the name change was rather self explanatory- The article is about the country, the country is called Most Serene Republic of San Marino. (As opposed to other San Marinos, namely the capital city and the Californian city). I thought it unlikely such a self-explanatory and obvious move needed discussion. Perhaps you would like to explain which relevant part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions you think i should read? Mesoso2 20:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The part that says article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. Also see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). Articles on countries take the English name of the country itself, not the formal title of the country except in rare cases. For example, the article on the country Norway is not named Kingdom of Norway, even though there are other places named Norway such as Norway, New York and Norway, Iowa. --Mathew5000 07:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


You were right to characterize my last contribution to the discussion on the film noir article's tone as "impolite." There was no need for me to add the barbs I did at the end of my comment. If that was you signing in anonymously to whom I was responding, I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize directly. In any event, thank you for pointing it out and I'll be try to be more thoughtful in the future. All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool. --Mathew5000 (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Hello Mathew5000 -

I have translated the article about the F60 which you requested. As it contains a lot of very specialized words, I would love to have someone who is familiar with the subject take a look at the article. Since you requested it, perhaps you know a little about the topic. I don't know how to contact the person who originally asked about it, since only his IP address is listed, though I did leave a short note on the German F60 talk page.

Anyway, I figured I'd let you know. Thanks. Scbarry (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied. --Mathew5000 (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Baker Lake case[edit]

Hey, thanks for that. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Good pick up on the edits at the season pages. You might be interested in a WP:Featured topic that the seasons have been nominated for, just in case you want to leave a comment there. There's also a thread at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Summaries you might be interested in joining. The change has already been implimented, but continuing the discussion doesn't hurt. Regards, -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 01:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Mathew5000 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dogmatic view on bat monophyly?[edit]

I noticed your edits on "Flying primates theory". They appear quite dogmatic. The DNA evidence alone can't prove anything, it is another piece of evidence that will eventually contibute to a consensus view. In controversial issues like this it is important to give enough room for both points of view, and not to give an impression that science has a final answer. Recent neurological studies keep supporting fundamental differences between micro and megachiropteran bats, and the newly proposed classifications of bats should, themselves, prove that this is a dynamc field. I have therefore toned down some of your recent changes, but will be happy to talk.Fluminense (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I am correct, but I asked at the Science RefDesk [6] for some more knowledgeable advice about whether or not there is a scientific consensus that bats are monophyletic. --Mathew5000 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point a bit. Your edit removed accurate information (in the historical sense) to substitute for something that may (or may not) reflect the current status of the field. Science is dynamic, and all that is needed is another study to destry the "consensus", if there is such a thing. Whatever the current status is, the paragraph deleted will remain correct. I again suggest that the best way to deal with this issue, both from the point of view of Wikipedia standards and scientifically, is to add to the section on "biochemical studies" a statement to the effect that now there is "strong evidence" from DNA studies, and perhaps expand a bit on why this is the best type of evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluminense (talkcontribs) 13:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say my edit removed accurate information? It was you who deleted ([7]) a paragraph from the article, not me. In any event, science articles in Wikipedia are supposed to make clear what the current consensus is on the subject, before discussing alternative views. --Mathew5000 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, you seem to be quite involved in this zoology debate. Consider your level of involvement with this question, and remember that we are supposed not to use the articles to advance an agenda. I agree with you that the DNA evidence points to monophyly. The question is whether one should take the DNA evidence as overruling other types of evidence. Unfortunately this is not yet established, and other people with interest in zoology are well aware of several examples where different lines of evidence contradict each other. By all means expand on this point of view, but please do not by extension "deprecate" other views (your words, in editing "Bat"). There is no consensus yet on bat phylogeny; consider for example the recent Yango/ Yino sudvision, which seems to turn on its head the previously supported subdivision between Mega and Micro. The DNA studies will require additional verification, and support from other lines of evidence. I also suggest that you find another reference to support this claim, as the paper currently cited appears to be a paleontological paper (which cites DNA studies).Fluminense (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It is strange that you suggest I have an “agenda”. Also I observe that you ignored my question to you, asking you what “accurate information” you claim I removed. --Mathew5000 (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Matthew5000. Sorry I've been away, so did not have a chance to continue our debate. I notice that you have been editing a lot of pages, and the key theme seems to be an impression that the DNA evidence "settles" questions and result in a consensus view. I am sorry I have to disagree with this, and while I have no interest in engaging in an edit war, I hope that I if I can explain my point of view you will be persuaded to change back your edits to a more neutral perspective. My key points are: 1. There are still artiles being published in the peer-reviewed literature in support of the flying primates theory, so, strictly speaking, there is no consensus, even though I agree with you that there is currently a majority view. 2. The DNA data itself is ambiguous, with several conflicting maximum likelihood trees being proposed by different groups. Until there is an agreement, it is hard for us who have been educated with a broad view of biology to take these data as gospel. 3. Other types of evidence (morphological, physiological) keep pointing to incompatibilities with the DNA data. So, all I am asking is for you to accept the possibility that the DNA phylogeny you keep citing (one paper in particular) may not be absolute after all. More to the point, stating that there is consensus does not make it happen! So, for the benefit of all of us please adopt a scientific perspective in this debate, and accept that other points of view exist and may even be valid. The flying primate is only one example, but I notice for example that you have also removed reference to any competing phylogenies from the bat page- hence, deletion of content.

I will abstain from further edits until I hear from you, but please consider if we can settle this without having to ask for mediation or arbitration. Have a look at my last edit, and consider if this does not convey the information you want to convey (namely, "many people nowadays think that the hypothesis is wrong due to DNA analysis"). Also consider if you don't have a conflcit of interest. Are you involved in DNA phylogeny research? Are you an author of a paper that "proves" that bats are monophyletic? If so, you could consider abstaining from edits on this topic (see the "etiquette" page).Fluminense (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In my three edits to the Bat article ([8][9][10]) I removed the reference to Archonta from the taxobox, but it is still mentioned in the body of the article. I could not see any sources in that article supporting the assertion in the taxobox that the superorder is under debate. I cited the 2005 Eick paper not for its own new findings, but for its summary of the findings of previous papers published since 2000. And as to your last point, perusing my contribution history since 2006 may persuade you that I do not have a conflict of interest. --Mathew5000 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bat phylogeny[edit]

No problem- I'm glad to help. --Several Times (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Oh, sorry about the edit to the animal crab. I got it mixed up with the body lice one I was looking for and made a few edits on the wrong wiki page. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Texhausballa (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Even so, this edit was apparently intended as a joke, i.e. vandalism. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-mammalian, non-avian, invertebrate[edit]

Hi, you changed the phrasing in the article Pescetarianism from "Non-mammalian, non-avian" to "invertebrate". But there is amphibian and reptiles which are not invertebrates, so don't you think "Non-mammalian, non-avian" will be better attribution? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, pescetarians do not generally eat reptiles and amphibians, so I would say “invertebrate” is the better word. --Mathew5000 (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Campo di transito di Bolzano --> Bolzano Transit Camp[edit]

Hello Mathew5000,
I've completed the proofreading and editing of the page above, for which you requested a translation. Please, take a look at it and let me know if there's anything more/else I may help with. Regards,
--Campelli (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Campelli. I made a few small edits. I wonder if the word lager needs more explanation; it is used a few times in the article but has no wikilink. Maybe there is a better English translation for that word? --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paul Callow[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Paul Callow, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Callow. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. لennavecia 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Clue challenge[edit]

Your recent comment to Talk:Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions seems to be a comment on the game material and not related to article improvement. May I suggest you move it? Robert K S (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a response to your comment that goes to the reliability of the source. --Mathew5000 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not at all clear. My comment is about AIDS being the cause of Jerry Frankel's death. Your remark seems to be a addressed to trivia material that appeared on the show. What is the relevance? Please clarify. Robert K S (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Suppose someone writes a paragraph containing two statements. It turns out that Statement #1 is wrong. Doesn't that militate against using Statement #2 as the sole source for a fact in a Wikipedia article? —Mathew5000 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

You didn't consider my edit on the taser case to be minor?

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No. There's lengthy discussion on the talk page of the article, about whether or not to include the particular information that you inserted in a "minor" edit. --Mathew5000 (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoken languages of Canada renamed again?[edit]

Hey, I saw that two years ago you noticed there was not a section on the article one the (then titled) Languages of Canada that acknowledged Deaf Sign languages. So you renamed it Spoken languages of Canada.

I would be interested in writing a new section dedicated to the sign languages of Canada and then renaming back to its previous title. I just wanted a go-ahead from someone previously involved in the article before I made a major change like that. =)

-- Happy Holiday, by the way! Working for Him (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I think it would be great to have a section in the article on sign languages, and then the title of the article could be changed back to Spoken Languages of Canada. --Mathew5000 (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your Reference desk answer![edit]

Thanks againTim Tebow ROCKS!!!!!! (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Official languages of the United Nations[edit]

Updated DYK query On February 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Official languages of the United Nations, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


sorry, but I think yuor answnswr was wrong[]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krj373 (talkcontribs) 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Language policy of the provinces and territories[edit]

I agree with you that the waters are muddy. Please be bold and help me add nuance to this important article. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 02:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

ICJ members election[edit]

in reply to th:คุยกับผู้ใช้:Aristitleism/กรุ 1#Nomination of judges to the ICJ

Thank you so very much.

My initial understanding was that, by operation of Article 5,

(1) The Secretary General sends a written request to (1.1) the "members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration belonging to the states which are parties to the present Statute" and to (1.2) the "members of the national groups appointed under Article 4, paragraph 2";

(2) And by such request the persons in (1.1) and (1.2) are invited to undertake the nomination.

Until your explanation, I didn't get that the persons (1.1) and (1.2) will constitute the national groups to nominate the judges; thinking that, when Article 5 makes clear that the request is to be sent to the persons in (1.1) and (1.2) in order to invite them to nominate the judges, why the phrase "by nomination groups" is needed to be there in the provision. Possibly (I have to say that I've previously read the foregoing Articles, as I was/am studying public international law) I've forgotten the provisions of Article 4 while reading Article 5. Thinking back to this, I laughed with myself: how ridiculous was I?

I would like to once again say thank you. And thank you for your attention, even the topic has passed and has been placed in the Archives for days. Please be informed that it's also my pleasure to help you any time you want :)

--Aristitleism (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Mathew5000 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

UNSC elections[edit]

Hello, Mathew5000. I noticed your recent addition to the United Nations Security Council election, 2010 article. You must be aware that only a few of those elections are covered on Wikipedia. I have personally been searching the internet to find reliable sources, to no result. I think the main reason for this is that I seem to be unable, for the life of me, to successfully navigate those same UN sites to which you posted the links to in your edit. It would be very positive if you could provide such links for more of these elections - if the info exists, that is. It would certainly serve to improve Wikipedia in this area. --... there's more than what can be linked. 12:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, the UN web site is a pain to navigate. In looking for press releases, what I've found is that there is the "UN News Centre" (, which has "friendly" press releases, usually with photographs, and then there is the "Department of Public Information • News and Media Division" ( which has more "formal" press releases, generally with more complete information and sometimes with a mention of the symbol of the official UN document. Once you have the symbol (for example A/66/150) you can generally view a pdf by appending that symbol to "" (for example
For searching the official UN documents, use which is okay but a little tricky. For searching the UN web site, the best is (which seems to be an interface to Google) and for searching the UN News Centre there is, which is often slow or broken. Then, there is United Nations Bibliographic Information System (UNBISNET) which has lots of UN documents as well as voting records for the GA and Security Council going back to 1946.
As for external sources on Security Council elections, for recent years anyway, have a look at Security Council Report and Mathew5000 (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
One other thing, UN Document A/59/881 has appended to it a nice table of all the voting tabulations in elections for non-permanent Security Council members, from 1946 to 2004. The table was prepared by the delegation from Costa Rica, to support an argument it was making relating to proposed expansion of the Security Council. Mathew5000 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! Your pointers were really useful - not that I made full use of them yet, but at least I have found a source! And nice to see you working on the elections, I also did a bit of work on them. --... there's more than what can be linked. 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pan Am (TV series)[edit]

I have responded to your post at the article talk page. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination - ICJ judges election, 2011[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of ICJ judges election, 2011 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Easchiff (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please return to Template:Did you know nominations/ICJ judges election, 2011 to see the new comments. Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for International Court of Justice judges election, 2011[edit]

Another great contribution to Wikipedia - thanks Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Geocentric view of the seasons[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Geocentric view of the seasons has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Pseudo-scientific, unreferenced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Editor2020 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your message re New ICJ judges[edit]

I somehow missed your message on my talk page in the German Wikipedia. I answered there. Sorry for the late reply! --Uwe (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

New Articles Lists[edit]

Hi there, I see that a couple of times you've removed non-Australian related articles from the new article bot list. This really isn't necessary as the bot just puts them back in next time it runs! See - the Operation Septentrion and North Dakota list were put back on the list by the bot. I think that most people who look at the list understand that there will be some false positives and just ignore them. Cheers, The-Pope (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Operation Septentrion[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Operation Septentrion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Lihaas (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Septentrion[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 01:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

personal question[edit]

Hey Mathew I am wondering are you from the general Ottawa area or nearby? I have a classmate who spells his name the exact same way as you do, which is why I am asking. SMikeCRygas 05:29, 25 October 2012

It isn't me. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc.[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for contributing to the Maus article. You do realize, though, that MetaMAUS was already talked about in the "Publication history" section? The article is rather long, and quite a bit had to be left out to keep it from getting out of hand (there was talk about spinning off certain sections into their own articles, such as one on Maus in academia, and one on translation issues). Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked that. Considering that it won two awards, MetaMaus is notable enough for its own article. (I think only the two M's should be capitalized, not the final "aus".) Mathew5000 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Capitalization: I honestly don't know where the style guide stands on capitalization of two words smooshed together. If you were to change it, I wouldn't protest.
Own article: It definitely satisfies the notability requirements. It is, in a way, a continuation of the CD-ROM from the 1990s, which has also had quite a bit written about it (including at least one academic article that I'm aware of). If there's to be an article, I think it'd be best to combine them. I won't be doing it, though—I've had enough of Maus for a while after taking it through FAC twice. I don't think MetaMaus is prominent enough in Maus '​s history to warrant an entire subsection in the main Maus article, though. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I made a further edit [11] consolidating the information on MetaMaus but this did separate that from the discussion of The Complete Maus. I also put a comment on the Talk page. If you want to revert my edits I won't object but please wait a day or two to see whether anyone else has a better idea. Mathew5000 (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for responding to the Privacy Act change so quickly! RhodesArk (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Longwave (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julianne Moore may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • html|accessdate=July 22, 2012|newspaper=The New York Times|date=February 11, 2001}}</ref><ref>{{{{cite podcast |url= <!-- or on youtube

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)