User talk:Imjustmatthew/Archive/Archive for 2007

2007 Talk Page Archive

This is a subpage containing talk messages left on my talk page prior to and during 2007.
You may also wish view my main user page

Old Talk Comments

Hi. Please disambiguate "Java" on your user page. For example, Java. Thanks. RedWolf 23:07, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm from Olin College. It's always nice to see Wikipedians interested in our school! Cheers! --Nertzy 06:54, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, a math sci person, yeah! (sophmore) -68.57.38.120[1]

Number of species of dik-dik

I am glad to see someone with better biology knowledge than myself working on the dik-dik article, but I am curious as to were you found your number (four) for the number of species of dik-diks. The African Wildlife Foundation states there are five, and a few days ago when I first found the dik-dik article it stated there were three species. It is distinctly possible that your source is better than the AWF, I am just interested what source you used. --Matthew 22:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I used ITIS (you'll see that I added the reference to the dik-dik article) but [2] and MSW [3] agree. The web page you refer to might be mistaken, or might be counting as separate species that are synonymized by others. Since it doesn't name the species, it's hard to tell. Gdr 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have no further doubt of your sources. --Matthew 22:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:XavierVillaurrutia.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:XavierVillaurrutia.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 09:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Chernobyl Edits

You wrote:

You removed a large portion of the section regarding the translation of wormwood and its comparison to Chernobyl. I have been muling over these changes, and I strongly question your removal of the sections that are purely factual and not POV. I am curious as to why you believe these sections should be excluded from the article. Thanks, --Matthew 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to my first change... First I removed "urban myth," because for Wikipedia to be truly NPOV, not only can it not support interpretations of prophetic or religious works (or interpretations of any works, for that matter), but it also cannot reject interpretations. Rather, it should merely report in a neutral way the facts relating to the subject. It is a fact that some people believe the Chernobyl accident was prophesied in the bible. It is not a fact, however, that this has been disproved. The word myth is thrown in to present the idea immediately as false, and is definite POV. (I think weasel words applies here.)

Second, I removed the following paragraph:

It is important to note that, according to theologians, the Book of Revelation is a book of prophecy, and that the events of the book take place in the future as a series, not isolated events throughout time. Theologically speaking, such interpretations are incorrect and taken out of context.

This paragraph has several flaws. First, it says "according to theologians", which pretty much discounts the rest of the paragraph as more "weasel words" (opinion attributed to an anonymous source). Second, it states as fact a direct interpretation of the Book of Revelation based purely on conjecture (that the noted "theologians" in fact know how the series of events was intended to take place). Third, the last sentence (starting with "Theologically speaking") draws a conclusion of assertion that the "urban myth" is false. I see no way to prove or disprove this, unless we travel back in time to speak to the author of Revelation and even then, we'd only be able to take him at his word.

Another reason for the removal is that "Chornobyl" in fact does refer to a type of "wormwood"—the problem is just that the translation in the other direction (English to Ukranian) is not as direct. The paragraph about the meaning of the word was incomprehensible, as well as misleading. This is the reason for my second edit. I tried to reformat the paragraph to better reflect the real meaning of the word, as I understand it from Chernobyl#Name origin.

What section do you feel I removed that was purely factual? -- Renesis13 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of the biblical piece and the its associated POV, I was specifically refering to the text you removed in your edit on | February 8, 2006 at 13:12 EST:

"The name of the city comes from the Ukrainian word for mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), which is "chornobyl". The word is a combination of chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билля, grass blades or stalks), hence it literally means black grass or black stalks."

As well as:

"Chernobyl also could be translated as mugwort because the two had very similar properties, such as the plants looked almost identical, had a very bitter taste and had effects on people's moods."

I am not a linguist, nor familiar with these languages, but these paragraphs seem to me as if they are factual and are not really POV statements. Do you believe these statements are incorrect? --Matthew 18:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove that text because of POV, but because it was difficult to understand and a little misleading. According to the first section of Chernobyl, "Chornobyl" is the Ukranian word for "Mugwort" (which according to Wikipedia, is "common wormwood"). Then it goes on to explain where the word chornobyl comes from, and says it means "black grass" or "black stalks". This is fairly irrelevant (in the context of the Chernobyl Accident/Wormwood discussion), since it already stated that "chornobyl" is the word for "mugwort/common wormwood". I did not remove it from the article Chernobyl, but rather tried to summarize the relevant information from that article. I felt the way it was before was a little misleading because it was as if it was trying to also say that Chornobyl does not translate to a type of wormwood (it does, as far as I can tell).

Overall, I was just trying to make it more understandable. The second paragraph ("Chernobyl also could be translated...") didn't really make any sense, because it is translated as "mugwort" in the first place, and in the second place what does it mean by "the two"? Anyway, that information may be useful if anyone else can verify what it is trying to say. I couldn't tell and don't have the experience to know. The section on the meaning of wormwood had been that way for several months (see my request for cleanup on the talk page) and I felt I could at least make it match the Chernobyl article better. I think it is more understandable now. If you don't agree, what do you think should happen? -- Renesis13 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you that the section is a bit confusing, but it would be benefical to the article to have a piece that addresses the translations of "wormword" and "Chernobyl" more throughly. I am also inclined to think the article was better with the section than without it, but if you have a problem with including it we can ditch it. I really feel that just saying that the translation is disputed is sort of a cop out though. There is probably a right and wrong translation and a linguist would probably be able to explain it better. I think we should endeavour to find a proper, well justified translation rather than just cop out. I will attempt to find such a source. --Matthew 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

little sence of humor?

life is beatiful. ~bob~

I'm sorry, I don't consider vandalism of encyclopedia articles to be particularly humorous, and I'm not sure I would consider calling someone a "repulsively looking American" to be particularly funny at any time. --Matthew 08:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Chernobyl-Object-Shelter.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chernobyl-Object-Shelter.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rama 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Your user page vandalised

Hi, I've reverted some vandalism to your user page (23 September) and reported it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse#202.68.88.74). By the way, I'm another Matthew Roy. Got to protect the brand, right? Cheers--Saganaki- 07:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oscar rodriguez

Why did you take the rfd off? oO The page it redirects to is merely a blue link because it's been protected from recreation. -WarthogDemon 19:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I took it off accidentally, I meant to tag it with "hangon" as it was oddly flagged for deletion anonymously, I already corrected the mistake, and removed the "hangon" --Matthew 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Accusations (copied from User talk:MastaBaba)

Hi. Please don't accuse people of vandalism when they are innocent. It is called slander. MastaBaba

Are you referring to a specific incident? I only leave vandalism warnings on user pages after reverting an edit which appears to be vandalism. I also do not use warning messages that explicitly claim the user is committing vandalism unless it is fairly blatant. Please let me know more specifically what you are referring to. --Matthew 18:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not issued you any vandalism warnings at the user account User:MastaBaba. Perhaps you are referring to messages left at an IP address or another user account. It is possible that if you use a shared IP address through a dial-up or LAN connection that other people may share your IP address. When you are not logged-in you see messages left at the IP address you're using rather than those left for you at your user name. --Matthew 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Of course I'm referring to a specific incident. It was related to a page on currency exchange. You're right the warning wasn't direct at my username, but at the IP address I was using. And, indeed, I saw it when I was not logged in. I'm not aware that, when logged in, messages directed at an IP address are not shown (and thus not connected to a user). If this indeed is the case, there's less of an issue here, but it's still not fully besides the point as the chances of the actual vandaliser seeing that message (when it is directed at an IP address) are minute. --MastaBaba 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are very right about IP talk pages being somewhat obscure, especially for users whose IP address changes. Unfortunately IP talk pages are the only tool available for warning anonymous users that they are vandalizing pages. In the interest in reviewing my accuracy in marking edits as vandalism, can you tell me what IP the message was left on, or link the talk page for that IP from here? Thanks. --Matthew 02:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to easily retrieve the message. However, here's a link to the page which your message referred to. --MastaBaba 09:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You can see the edit I reverted here, please take a look for yourself. It is possible the IP the message was left at is actually a shared IP (perhaps you're behind a NAT on a corporate LAN or something), so the person using the IP address you read the message from was someone else. Please accept my apologies for receiving a message that was clearly intended for someone else, IP talk pages are the only way to reach anonymous users. Feel free to ignore messages left on an anonymous talk page, any block to that IP will have no effect on you when you login. --Matthew 06:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalised indeed. My ISP doesn't hand out static IP addresses, so each time I 'log on' (boot up), I get a new IP address. The thing is, this set up is far from unique. Anyway, apologies accepted, of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MastaBaba (talk • contribs).

It Dies Today Edit

mm im really not vandalizing the page. the show was in Clifton Park New York. you can check the Never Shave Again Tour Dates, and it will say Albany, at Northern Lights. Northern Lights is actually located in Clifton Park. http://www.northernlightslive.com/ see? oftentimes when bands come here they will say Albany, because Clifton Park isnt quite as well known.

My apologies, I have restored your edits, I was too quick to believe that the edits were sly vandalism after you had received other vandalism warnings at your IP address. --Matthew 02:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. I have a note about using AWB. I would argue, per WP:AWB#Rules_of_use, edits like this should not have been saved. Such an edit is very minor, adds little if any value, and a bunch of edits like that may create too much work for people who check their watchlists and recent changes.

Also, this edit is problematic, I would think, since all it did was removing a space, and it put the stub at the bottom, while I think the stub should be before the category. If you wanted to copyedit that article with more value, you could have fixed

= External Links =

into

== External links ==

In short, my point is that while AWB is valuable and is great help, it should not be used for superficial edits and not in a bot-like manner, but rather, AWB should be used as an aid to more serious editing. I wonder what you think. You can reply here. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points and how they relate to the rules for use for AWB, and though I find them kind of funny, I'm not in a position to dispute them with my present level of experience. The edits I saved all did a little more than simply remove or add whitespace, most of the alphabetized language links, or reordered categories and stub stuff. I felt like they, while minor, were sufficient to save, I don't feel like it does too much to tax the database servers. Perhaps they weren't, I'm not sure yet. They were mostly just a way to find out what AWB could do by working through my watchlist.

In terms of the actual edits, AWB's built-in layout guide puts the stub below the category links automatically. I presume this was done for a reason, though I have never seen a guideline to that effect in the MoS. I would prefer the consistency with a standard, even if I don't think it matters that much.

Anyways, I will try to keep my edits with AWB more substantial, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. --Matthew 04:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned with taxing the database servers either, rather with taxing people who examine the recent changes and watchlists. Perhaps my message above was kind of grumpy, and I don't know if what I think has widespread agreement, but anyway, I think you got my point. Enjoy editing! :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments weren't grumpy in the slightest, and did get the point across I hope. Check my last edits to Asonica, Aspatia of Miletos, and Association for Women in Sports Media. I'm wishing I could find a spellcheck in AWB though, it doesn't let be use Google toolbar. --Matthew 05:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

HI

You sent me a message saying that i had edited articles with the purpose of furthering a commercial cause. I must remind you that I am from India and hence we do not have static IPs. I haven't edited any article till date. The previous user of the IP must have done so. In any case please confirm the error before dishing out these messages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.1.238.40 (talk • contribs).

Please accept my apologies for the message you received that was directed at another person using you IP address, as well as my apologies in advance for any additional messages you may receive in error. It is unfortunate that you received this message in error while using a shared IP address, however, it is the only method we have for talking to users of Wikipedia who have not signed up for an account. If you sign up for an account you will no longer receive messages on your shared IP, you will also not be affected by any blocks that could be placed upon that IP for actions taken by other people who use the IP address. --Matthew 07:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:SFriendly.gif

Imjustmatthew, the version of Image:SFriendly.gif, you recently uploaded is poorly implemented. The outer circle is not a solid line as in the original. Please fix it or return it to its original quality. Rfrisbie^talk 04:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I have completely redone the border with vectors in Fireworks to provide proper anti-aliasing effects along the edges. --Matthew 05:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, whatever problem you created still exists. This image is used in some very popular templates – {{Smiley}} and {{Smiley2}}. Please fix it so the border looks as thick as it does on the companion images shown below. If you can't, please restore the original image. {{Smiley/Box}} {{Smiley2/Box}}
Rfrisbie^talk 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The images previously used here to exemplify the problem have been deleted or soon will be.

The problem is arising from the way the image is being scaled when it has a transparent background versus when it doesn't. (hence why you are seeing the problem but I'm not, I'm only using the image full-size.) My thinking cap is on, but I fear it may be an issue arising from either the way the MediaWiki software or the browser scales the image, if I don't find a way to fix it by tonight (23:00 EST) I'll just revert the image. --Matthew 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem occurs in IE 6 also, I can't think of any good way to workaround the issue, so I'm just going to revert the image oh well, so much for an image without an ugly white background. --Matthew 00:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How about just renaming the image you created and putting the original one back? Rfrisbie^talk 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, I will. Thanks for working through this with me. --Matthew 04:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I like the concept. Too bad it got so goofy trying to make it work out! :) :) Rfrisbie^talk 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for anti-vandalism work

Thanks for your anti-vandalism work. --BostonMA ^talk 19:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to say so, I'm glad it's made someone's day better. --Matthew 19:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Untagged images

I want to start helping out with Image processing. I read Wikipedia:Untagged images and still am unsure what to do (also, see my comment on the the Wikipedia:Untagged images talk page). For example, Image:Album art.png is a non notable album cover for a non notable band. Do I tag it with Albumcover even though it should be deleted? Image:43867029-O.jpg is a photo of the uploader's dog. GFDL would be appropriate, but only the uploader can give the license and if I post GFDL using the uploader's user name, am I giving that license on her behalf? Image:AlexBrowning.jpg is a Film-screenshot, but I'm not really sure its from the movie (it probably is but I couldn't find it via google) and the page using the image already has too many images so I'm not sure I can make a fair use statement as it relates to that particular page. These images appear at the top of Images with no copyright tag as of 1 January 2007, which is where I started. I probably am overthink all this and really need someone to walk me through how to help out with image processing. You changed the Wikipedia:Untagged images, so I assume you know what to do. Thanks. -- Jreferee 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know a little bit about it, but the best person to ask is User:Verloren Hoop, she's much more active with the project and will greatly appreciate the help. She's not online right now, but I will tell her (in real life) to talk to you. You might also want to leave her a message at her talk page so she gets back to you more quickly.

As for the specific images you're referring to, give me one second to review them more carefully. --Matthew 20:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The image Image:Album art.png looks like it's actually used in the article for that band, I wouldn't tag the image for deletion until the article has been deleted. I would recommend you tag the article for deletion either with {{db-nn}} or {prod|Not Notable}} the first tag nominates the article for speedy deletion, which is more appropriate for articles that are very not notable, while the second tag is a slightly slower deletion process that is for articles that are less not notable, I'll let you pick the one you're more comfortable with. After the article is deleted you can tag the image with {{db-nn}}, if the admin deleting the article itself doesn't delete the image also. More coming shortly...--Matthew 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As for image Image:43867029-O.jpg, it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that you must contact the uploader and get them to tag the image under GNU FDL, as they own the IP to the work and must release it. I would try to get them to add the tag first, and if the don't in a reasonable time I would ask a more experienced user with the project like User:Verloren Hoop.

Image:AlexBrowning.jpg, well whether the article has too many pictures is subjective, but if you're pretty sure the image came from the film you can tag it with the film fair use tag. You might also try contacting the uploader to find the source of the image, as it looks like they left a tag indicating they wanted help finding the license.

Anyways, I hope this gets you started and I will try and get User:Verloren Hoop in contact with you soon. --Matthew 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me a contact AND addressing my concerns. I posted the {{db-nn}} template in the relevant article, posted a message on the talk page of the uploader of Image:43867029-O.jpg, and tagged the Image:AlexBrowning.jpg. Looks like I'm on my way. -- Jreferee 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

List of chefs

I have reversed your reversion. Michael Barry a TV producer now correctly links to Michael Bukht, better known as Michael Barry. The page Michael Barry (chef) already redirects to Michael Bukht garryq 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah I see now, yes you are right, I was wrong to revert that change. --Matthew 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Message about Vandalism

Hi, this is Joe Maynard. I'm Brian Keene's personal assistant. He asked me to remove something from the Wikipedia page about him (he said the new 'Series' entry was inaccurate and wondered if it could be removed), and I'm being told this is considered "vandalism" and I am "blocked"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.138.11 (talk • contribs).

It appears as if you may be behind a corporate LAN or proxy, which is making all the edits on your LAN appear to come from the same source. I will not revert the last content change you made to the article Brian Keene. I would also recommend you register for an account, it will take about 10 seconds and will prevent your edits from being labeled as vandalism simply because of their IP address of origin. You should also read Wikipedia's policies regarding autobiographical edits, there has been a lot of controversy regarding edits by personal assistants and such to their boss's articles, particularly with regard to the House of Representatives. --Matthew 21:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting skeptical, in this edit summary you or someone at your IP address claimed to be Bruce Ross. I don't like coincidences very much. --Matthew 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nader

Ok I won't post Nader again without a link.

But is j. edger hoover ok? 132.241.246.111 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, adding someone to the list of Asexual people in the article Asexuality is not acceptable without a proper source and citation. Introducing names without justification is libelous. --Matthew 22:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there was justification for adding Nader but since he's alive I decided it would be best for wikipedia not to add him.

Hoover on the other hand was never married, never dated, and almost became a minister.

So if any historic figure could be called Asexual without calling themselves this it's Hoover.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/usa/j-edgar-hoover/

132.241.246.111 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotten.com is not a very credible source. Take a look at WP:VERIFY for more information on the burden of proof and credible sources. As far as Nadar is concerned, take a look at WP:BLP which talks about the extraordinary importance of verifiability in the biographies of living persons. --Matthew 22:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

wanker

toss off will you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.93.61.166 (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

I will presume your comment results from my efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I am sorry your experiance with Wikipedia was not a pleasant one. You should read Wikipedia:Introduction to learn more about contributing to Wikipedia. --Matthew 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Message from User:snarkart

Hi Matthew

Thankyou for your message about my being related to David Elliot - you're quite right, we are related, but my only intention is to ensure those who appreciate his illustration have an opportunity to get the facts right - such as who he is and what books he has illustrated. My intent is no more than that. One thing that you may be able to help me with - I inadvertently uploaded a high quality image file (illustration by David) by accident! I would really like to reverse the upload but don't know how. If you could delete this file for me or give me instructions how to do so, I'd be most grateful. Details are:

Mossflower.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Imagelist

uploaded: 01:58, 13 January 2007

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Mossflower.jpg

I hope you can help many thanks, Gillian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snarkart (talk • contribs).

Gillian, you can upload a new copy of the image at lower resolution by following this link. After you have done so, leave a message here and I will get an admin to delete the old copy of the image. --Matthew 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew

Many thanks for responding so quickly. If it's not too much hassle, I won't add an image right now, but I'd be most grateful if you or one of your colleagues could delete Mossflower.jpg

thanks again, Gillian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snarkart (talk • contribs).

I will mark the image for speed deletion.

Please keep in mind neutral point of view in your edits, I feel like they're alright so far, but others may not and it's a tough line to walk. Please be careful. --Matthew 03:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The image has been marked for deletion, an admin will be along shortly to delete it. --Matthew 03:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Matthew - apparently one of your colleagues has already helped out with the unintential upload of Mossflower - so many thanks for that. I also take your point about remaining impartial - I will do my best - if you feel I cross the line, please let me know. regards, Gillian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snarkart (talk • contribs).

none of my business, but...

I noticed you recently reverted an edit to Earthquake made by 67.189.86.160 in which they had replaced the word tremor with temblor. This seems a curious thing to revert, as the word temblor is a synonym for earthquake. Cheers - Opelio 08:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I hand assumed the edit by an anon was intentionally misspelled, apparently the ignorance was mine. I will revert my mistake. --Matthew 08:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for pointing out my mistake, you are wrong in one thing though, it was totally your buisness to point out my mistake, tools like VandalProof make it really easy to destroy legitamite users, and mistakes made in their use are very important. thank you again for taking the time to point this out to me. --Matthew 08:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use in user space

Hi Matthew. I noticed you added Image:Asme_logo.jpg to your user page. This image is copyrighted and can only be used under our fair use guidelines, which prohibit use on user pages. Please choose a different, freely licensed image. Thanks, Christopher Parham (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I have removed the logo. --Matthew 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Petty?

Do you know the priciple flaw with wikipedia? Any petulant twerp with access to a keyboard can be become an administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.93.61.166 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Editing of "Charlotte, North Carolina"

Hi Matthew. It's me, Japanfan. I got the message regarding the lack of citing my source which lists Charlotte as the 20th largest city in the United States. Actually, I found this information from Wikipedia itself (though I am unsure of its credibility), under a listing of the largest cities in the United States by population. The web address is <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_cities_in_the_United_States#Largest_cities>. The list identifies Charlotte, North Carolina as the 20th largest state in the United States, just behind Fort Worth, Texas. I am unsure which data is more current, but I decided to change the information in "Charlotte, North Carolina" to match Wikipedia's list. If there is a way I could cite the list, please let me know. Thanks! --Japanfan 16:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me, I really appreciate it. Citing Wikipedia within Wikipedia is generally not considered appropriate, however the article List of United States cities by population cites the source of its population numbers and rankings as the US Census Bureau 2005 estimate. Since you have copied the data from that article we can simply copy the citation as well. I have added the census bureau citation to the Charlotte, North Carolina article and removed the citation needed tag. Thanks for your help! --Matthew 17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the heads-up [4] on the username issue! --Kralizec! (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops

I didn't know those colours served a purpose... Sorry!TNTfan101 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone else told you they mean something, I don't know anything about them. I just thought it was really odd to see them change twice on my watchlist --Matthew 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You see, they are colorcoded. Pink, for example, are animals and plants. I din't know till now.TNTfan101 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now we both learned something. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. --Matthew 22:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment by User:Mohamad Ali

no you infidel American you know it is the truth let the truth be heard down with bush and his servents —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohmad Ali (talk • contribs).

Please do not make personal attacks, I am not an infidel, I'm a Roman Catholic, one of the people of The Book. --Matthew 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So am I- I lived in Indonesia - in Java - and practised tahlil with my moslem friends at sacred gravesites - and I said I was catholic and they had no problems with that - funny old world that. I was here to say thanks for your reverts on History ...SatuSuro 09:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to stop and mention the edits, it is good to know someone else is awake (it's the middle of the night in my time zone) --Matthew 09:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually in my mind there is a serious logistic issue with some admins and editors time online I know of at least one since blocked vandal who would get up early at his times zone to put it in and not see it reverted for up to 6 hours later...SatuSuro 09:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)-

I agree, it's funny how because Wikipedia is so language based its as if it just the US and Europe involved. At least most of the vandalism tapers of at night too. --Matthew 09:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

hi

when i edited a the page "does this look infected" i was curious how long i would take for you of anyone to find it and give me a warning, do you check all of the changes personally??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.158.137.195 (talk • contribs).

Editors here use a number of tools to monitor edits as they are made. Notably, every change to Wikipedia is broadcast to an IRC channel that we watch with special tools. You can find out more at WP:Vandalism --Matthew 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Note abourt Harry Potter Vandalism

Hi, Just wanted to let you know that the Harry Potter (Character) page has been vandalised, and since you seem to have dealt with it last time, I thought I should notify you - I don't know how to revert it back. Thanks, Rachel (potter fan) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.83.247 (talk • contribs).

Thanks, another editor has dealt with it, thanks for letting me know. Reverting is actually really easy, WP:REVERT describes how to do it and provide additional information about reverting, you should a take a look. --Matthew 21:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 19:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments at my RfA. I agree completely, though it seems that many others have a different philosophy. Oh well... Cheers, Jakew 10:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just speaking my mind, you know? Anyways, that WP:PAIN thing was a minor blunder, give it a few monthes and come back, hopefully then you'll be able to pull off somemore support. --Matthew 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought it best to withdraw on this occasion. Thanks again, Jakew 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Message from 69.171.26.188

its not nonsense.adam willard would get destroyed by travis, he looks like a pussy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.171.26.188 (talk • contribs).

I assume you're referring to this edit that you made and I reverted. Unfortunately, statements such as "Atom Willard would get his ass beat by travis barker in a celebrity deathmatch" that are so speculative and subjective to the point of nonsense are not appropriate for an encyclopedia whose content must be verifiable. The addition of this type of content to Wikipedia can be consider vandalism. --Matthew 05:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocked!!!

Re: Block of User:Miradu

Every so often, Colbert sics an army of loyal fans on Wikipedia -- the "attacks" have only gotten more disruptive over time, and the few counter-vandals available are usually pressed into mass protecting and blocking. That said, blocking without warning is frowned upon, and I've made an attempt to contact the user (I'll be digging through the rest of my block and protect logs, soon). As for the autoblock, it was and should have been disabled quickly, and while I can sincerely apologize for the trouble it caused you, you should probably see WP:AUTOBLOCK before getting too upset at me for "setting" it (autoblocks are actually controlled by the server, my name is only attached to it as an indexing method, if that makes sense). I happen to be one of only a few admins who spends a lot of time patrolling CAT:RFU, so had I been online at the time, I very likely would have been around to disable the autoblock myself.

Anyway, hope that clears things up a bit. You may wish to see here and here for AN/I discussion of tonight's "incident." If you have any further concerns, feel free to let me know. Luna Santin 07:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so upset about the autoblock as about the fact users are getting blocked without any warnings. I understand the autoblock is not directly due to your actions. It's just really distasteful that we're willing to drop our standards for fighting vandalism just because they're a bunch of them at once. If nothing else, every vandal needs to be warned once in their lifetime with bv or test4, otherwise we're just biting newbies. The article got protected, the horde could only do but so much. --Matthew 07:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We could explore a good deal of why tonight's response from what I'd call the "regular" counter-vandals was, in a nutshell, disorganized and harsh (mostly unfortunate technical details, problems with our main coordination method), but at the end of the conversation, I can only concede that you bring up a very important point. Newcomers are the heart of a wiki, and I should be more careful about this, in the future. Luna Santin 08:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Also, after a brief email exchange with Miradu, I've unblocked him/her. Thought you might want to know. Luna Santin 08:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks, for letting me know. I've dropped him a couple of e-mails about it. He's a student at Olin. --Matthew 08:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Echo Robotics

A tag has been placed on Echo Robotics, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the article is not a bio, I am not affiliated with the group in any way except that we go to the same college. --Matthew

Bio doesn't imply you have any thing to do with the group, it's a biography. If it's about you then that's an autobiography and WP:COI and WP:AUTO tend to get quoted. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 13:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, got it. --Matthew 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

???

I never editted anything on Zanzibar... I wanted to edit a Jose Calderon (Toronto Raptors) biography because it says he is 9 foot tall when he is 6'1" but I couldn't figure it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.102.48 (talk • contribs).

It is likely that your IP address is shared by other computers on a LAN or that you ISP assigns you a different IP address every time you login. If either of these are the case the vandalism messages may have been generated when someone else was using the IP address you edited from. --Matthew 06:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

IRCMonitor

Hi, Noticed your comment about no new IRCMonitor versions in the last few AWB releases (Wikipedia_talk:IRCMonitor#No_IRCMonitor_in_Build_3061.3F).

I have built one from the sources, and uploaded it here

Reedy Boy 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to using it! --Matthew 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As i posted, i dont think there are many changes, but if it helps you out, ive got no problem doing it =) Reedy Boy 18:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

James Cook...

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to James Cook. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Matthew 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, that's strange because I've never touched the James Cook article, however I am not signed in at the moment (I'm usually SepticShrimp). Strange, maybe I cycled to someone else's IP? 64.231.222.235 05:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is very likely, that was over a month ago, it could simply be that you ISP assigns IPs dynamically and you just got one that has a vandal warning on it that was never read. Sorry to scare you. --Matthew 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Intervention

I've undone the user's spam links, and given them a warning. I've also removed the personal attacks on your talk page here. Acalamari 21:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a remarkably simple way of handling it. --Matthew 21:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome; I saw your message on HighInBC's talk page and decided to help you. Acalamari 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Imitation is the highest form of flattery

Matthew,

It seems like you've put a great deal of work into your user page and autobiography. I feel you might be interested to see someone who has used your work without attribution: User:QueensFinest86. Please know that not everyone at CMU is similarly ignorant of the Wikipedia philosophy.

With regards, 128.2.13.162 18:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty cheap rip-off, thanks for pointing it out to me. The bio page is borderline a personal attack, but it's not worth making too much of a stink about at this time. Thanks again for taking the time to let me know. --Matthew 21:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Strath Logo.gif

Hello Imjustmatthew, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Strath Logo.gif) was found at the following location: User:Imjustmatthew/Autobiography. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice

Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Virginia, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)