User talk:Mattnad

Archive 1: December 2006 – April 2010

The Cow

So I was just wondering what's with the cow statue underneath your TV as shown in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MiniHT.JPG

Just curious. Also a bit curious as to where the Mac Mini's cords are.

75.152.166.246 (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)TheSUPERBIAN

3RR Warning on Apple TV

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I have posted a request for review on the admisitrator's noticeboard here AshtonBenson (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much. I've never been accused of being a meatpuppet before.Mattnad (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple TV

Hey. Just so you're aware, I brought up AshtonBenson's edits on Apple TV at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editor on Apple TV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks. I'll take a look. Mattnad (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Contessa Brewer

Regarding your posting on my talk page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ikeinthemed, could you please provide specifics as to where the tone was not neutral or otherwise provide suggestions on how to improve the segment in question to aptly summarize the video in the reference. If possible, please do so on my talk page. Thank you, Ikeinthemed (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC).

File:BMW_e30_1988_Canadian.jpg

I noticed you have replaced the license plate on this image with a Wikipedia logo. I believe the image is much better with the old pixellated license plate. --Gert7 (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Do we want to get other comments? I'm not stuck on having the newer image. Thought it might be nice to customize it, but if it really matters to you or others, we was switch back.Mattnad (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone and put it back. I agree with you in retrospect.

Planned Parenthood

I've been trying to ignore them, but sometimes I get annoyed enough to answer. I know I shouldn't really feed the trolls. The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed collaboration on AMT

Dear Mattnad, I would like to propose a collaboration on the Alternative Minimum Tax article. You seem to have a keen interest in it. I would like to see better coverage of this important topic. Together we should be able to improve it much more than we could separately.

I read in a helpdesk post that WP articles should cover both the basics and the complexities. I really like that idea. Perhaps we can get an article that's technically correct AND that non-accountants can understand.  :)

Some preliminary thoughts:

• KISS in the intro and (new) basics section. Jim the cab driver should understand from the intro that it doesn't apply to him.
• Have a section explaining the basics, right after the intro. This should be something Joe the engineer could understand. But it need not be as simple as the intro. This section should answer the question "does it apply to me" for nearly every reader. It doesn't need to answer the question "how much AMT do I owe" for any reader.
• Limit the history section to just that, and keep it short. In four decades of advising clients on tax, not a one client has asked me to explain how tax got this way.
• Cover controversies in a separate section. Right now they are in 3 sections. Getting balance on this will be a challenge. Move this to the end. It's for the policy theorists and political activists.
• Have a section saying what the differences are from regular tax. Give common examples. (State income tax is the most common, BTW.)
• Avoid jargon. Example: Tentative Minimum Tax is just AMT before comparing to regular tax. The regular tax credit for AMT is just forward smoothing. Together we can come up with simple and accurate in the same sentence.
• Add a section on corporate AMT. This one can be fairly technical, I think.
• Let's get rid of tax advice in the article. (To talk like an accountant: giving tax advice without the Circular 230 disclaimer and appropriate caveats invites penalties from the IRS. Note that that article REALLY needs improvement.) Hopefully most people know not to come to WP for tax advice!
• Let's take our time discussing before posting, and get it right the first time. Viewing is much lower in July-Nov, so we have lots of time.

Let's discuss here, my talk page, or the AMT talk page. I'm semi-retired and act it, so be patient for responses. I look forward to working with you. Regards, Oldtaxguy (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I haven't used sub pages before, nice thing to learn. Glad to have an editor, also. That second set of eyes sure makes a difference in quality. Check my talk page and see if I've done it right. Now called User talk:Oldtaxguy/AMT. Hectic tomorrow, but I have some free time Wed & Thurs. Thanks again.Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

M: Caution with the Tax Foundation site: it's a long time lobbying site that has no problems misrepresenting things to support their agenda. Better tools for seeing what your tax is at present are at H&R Block, TurboTax, dinkytown.net, and a few others. H&R & TT are both tax software providers with excellent software and online programs. I use a more complex one from CCH (VERY not recommended for average user; runs in a mere half gig though). I know Tax Foundation has a lot of supporters on Wikipedia, but I've found them to be highly biased and unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtaxguy (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review draft basics on User:Oldtaxguy/AMT ? Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft section on details of AMT

I have posted a draft of comprehensive details on AMT on User:Oldtaxguy/AMT. Can we try to get it ready to publish in the article by end-September? Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Any comments on the draft? Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderbra article

Hi there, this article has come to my attention due to a certain sockpuppet who showed up there, and who has now been blocked. However, on reading it over, I noticed that the first section (the one with the photo of the model in the '50s bra) seems to be missing a sentence or two. Since you're still obviously following the article, and you've obviously put a lot of work in to it, you're probably best suited to figure out if somewhere along the line there was some inappropriate snipping of the content. Thanks for your continued work here! Risker (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I took a look. Not sure I see the gap. I think I may be too close to it. Mattnad (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Apple TV

So tell me what you think. Fairly new editor shows up on Talk:Apple TV and is already mildly hostile with editors (e.g. "as editors you must use one or two neurons to decide if"), links to the same Apple article found in this edit, and tries to explain that forums can be reliable. Do you think this is the return of a now-blocked editor, or someone new? They don't have any other articles that they've edited in common, and their interests seem to be different. Still.. I can't help but wonder. What are your thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely a sock. I took a look myself at contributions and came to the same "not sure" as you did. Mattnad (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Planned_Parenthood#outdent.2C_discussion_continues_4's talk page.

Planned Parenthood revert

I find it interesting that you reverted the edit on the Planned Parenthood page even though in the discussion section about that edit you stated "If we go back to generic, it makes sense to me to keep. It's a bit of a throwaway sentence, like saying "pro life groups are against Planned Parenthood as a supplier of abortion services" but it adds some dimension.Mattnad (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC) " The only reason the source is so old is because of WMOs totally above and beyound requirement that it has to be a totally independant news source. There are lots of sources the fit the actual requirements for WP but he keeps reverting them because his defention of independent is so out there, way beyond what WP requires. LDI is not fringe if you do a search on their name with the boycott you will find tons of links including on newsfeeds for Catholic and Christian non-prolife news sources. As I said on the extensive thread about this LDI would be fringe if they were the only people that mentioned the boycott on their page. The fact that every pro-life group picked up the listing shows they aren't fringe. Also I don't think you realize it but the second reference was from 2005. It also talks about some of the repercussions from groups on the list.Marauder40 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Planned Parenthood reverts, don't forget the 1RR restriction. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't. And it looks like others are respecting it too!Mattnad (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's nice. :-) I just wanted to remind you beforehand instead of blocking you afterhand. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like you forgot it since then. Would you be so kind as to self-revert so I don't have to block you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As above. Really, if I have to keep reminding you, I'll have to block you for a longer period. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattnad. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chester Township

Regardless of which towns I choose to edit, all the information is factually correct. The information regarding vote totals and percentages has been appropriately cited and there is no reason to modify such edits. I frankly don't understand why you must waste your time repeatedly undoing my edits because you have a problem with me saying the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisfan2000 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to disagree with the characterization of "very strongly," I modified it to include only factual information. Chester Township has historically voted in favor of Republicans, and that is a fact. The information is completely factual and has been appropriately cited. Everything is supported by historical election data that is published by the State of New Jersey, a strongly reliable source. I see no reason why you must edit something when it is factually true. Chris Christie did indeed receive 72% of the vote in Chester Township in 2009, and the citation provides a link to the website where it is published by the State of New Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisfan2000 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Home theater PC

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 17:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course the issue was not misuse, but that the form was not filled to this editors satisfaction. ick.Mattnad (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattnad. You have new messages at Falcon8765's talk page.
Message added 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The novel

Hi, you spent the year well... I (tried to) read it as a high school student, and while it left an impact, I didn't even realize then how much I was missing. It's on the "read again during retirement" pile! AV3000 (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Your in the Middle of a Cornfield

Collect has spoken! ```Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Plex App Daily Show.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Plex App Daily Show.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Netflix Plex.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Netflix Plex.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist

How can one make sense of a watchlist of over 2000. I have trouble keeping track of 200. This is a test of the B7 ActualStalkerSystem or ASS for short. Thank you for your time and assitance. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

An important project WP:WEaPOn (about Paid Operatives) I have initiated is up for speedy. Can you assist? I want to play by the rules but they seem stacked against an honest effort to record a history of an event as it happens. Urgent. TY. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)