User talk:Imjustmatthew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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]

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 {{fairusein|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)

[edit] 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)

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

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Rosetta Stone was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

AzaBot 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/m/j/User_talk%7EImjustmatthew_4725.html"