User talk:Imjustmatthew

Click here to leave me a message
Remember to sign your name by typing ~~~~ after the message.
If you would like to send a private message please E-mail me

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:Imjustmatthew/Archive/Archive for 2025. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Template:Smiley/Box Template:Smiley2/Box
Rfrisbie^talk 16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Thanks for anti-vandalism work

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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:/upwiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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