User talk:Matt Britt/Archive 3

Archives

Previous talk page archives: [1], [2]

Oakland Cemetery FAR

I am doing the grunt work of notifying article creators/principal writers of articles up for FAR. Your sig was different on the FAR page than on the article, hence my message that it was up for review. If I may ask, why did you nominate it, rather than just fixing the problems? You obviously know a lot about the article and subject, given that you created it. Just curious. Jeffpw 18:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Internet map 1024.jpg

You have probably been told this already, but I just want to comment on how amazing the above image is. I stared at it for ages... I absolutely love it. It is really informative, and it looks so good. I set it as my wallpaper. Definately deserves the featured image status it got, well done. Just interested to know, how long did it take you to make? J Milburn 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy...

Groundhog Day Matt!! You are an excellent contributor on the reference desk. [Mαc Δαvιs] X (How's my driving?) ❖ 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was going to post on Talk:Something Awful

I was going to post this, but you removed your comment before I finished typing it up. Ignore it if you like.

• News source
• News source
• Reliable weblog
• News source
• News source
• Television source
• Reliable weblog

I'd go on, but I think I've made my point. These sources are reliable in terms of Internet sources- they may be unacademic, but they're definitely edited and reviewed. We shouldn't allow original research and shakey primary sources in lieu of actual sourcing just because "it's the internet". The reason I asked you to be civil is because you're being very aggressive and confrontational. Believe it or not, I have actually read what you posted, and just because I'm going by policies and guidelines doesn't mean I'm using then as a "bludgeoning stick".

The primary concern about the sourcing in this context is not about the history of the website - the important stuff is sourcable - it's the fact that having a criticism section that consists entirely of blogspot links and forums is not appropriate. They have absolutely no editorial or reviewing process, and most of all, they have zero credibility. --Wafulz 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

How in the world do you get the datestamps like that? ffm ^yes? 20:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ffm _{on 2007-02-19 15:23}

POTD

POTD

Hi Matt,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Internet map 1024.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 31, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-03-31. howcheng {chat} 06:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Cemetery rating

Wasn't sure if you were watching my page, so I'm responding on yours. Hope that's okey-dokey.  :)

I'm going thru and rating the WP:NRHP-related articles, as it was starting to get backlogged. As far as this one, I'd say:

1. Very good amount of information
2. Nice pics to highlight points
3. It was a former featured article

Dang, and the map in the infobox, I didn't even notice; that's well cool! I normally under-rate articles (I'd rather err on the side of caution when I'm not sure) but that map would have definitely helped put it over anyway. My understanding is that an individual can't rate an article higher than a B. Above that has to go through a review process. So I rated it the highest that I could. I'd love to see it get back to FA status again. If there's some way I can help, unlikely though that may be, I'd love to. Since I live in North Central Florida, we're practically neighbours, cosmically speaking. I'm trying to get pics of all the NRHP sites in the state, but I've been tempted to pop across the border to get a few Georgia ones.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!  :) --Ebyabe 00:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm watching your page, so you can respond back here. Or on my page, whichever works for ya. :) --Ebyabe 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your corrections on Overclocking. I am not familiar with the subject and only relying on the books. Your coaching is welcome! --BorgQueen 22:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask a favor of you?

I noticed you are a regular editor of the semiconductor Wikipedia page. I created the extrinsic semiconductor page for a technical communication class and would greatly appreciate your feedback on it. I need to make another revision for my final grade and would like some pointers from an experienced Wikipedia editor. I appreciate any comments but if you don't have time to check it out that is ok, too.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adeut85 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi

I ask if you could take a look at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses and see if it needs some language and grammar check. I would also ask if you could check out the article Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. I believe there is reason to highly question that article's neutrality. Summer Song 13:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing links added from other users without contact.

The links added by myself are legitimate and are not marketing. I represent a review site that conducts tests and posts analysis of products. We dont sell a thing. I would appreciate you checking with the user posting a link before arbitrarily removing a link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JasonTWL (talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Recent edits on Main JW Page

Some good editing in the "Belief and Practices" section of the main JW page. Glad to see you back on the page! Dtbrown 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG, there's like hourly vandalism on the jw page. Good work to you and the others in keeping it under control. Fcsuper 05:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Mstare88

User:Mstare88 is a new editor who is learning what is and is not acceptable editing at Wikipedia. He has come a long way since his earliest edits but still has quite a ways to go. His last two edits were to Hell and Jehovah's Witnesses, both of which you reverted based primarily on content. I am not qualified to comment on whether his edits were factually correct or not. I defer to your knowledge of the subject.

However, I would ask that you be kind to this user and explain on User talk:Mstare88 why his edits were unacceptable. It appears that he has a strong anti-JW POV and so he may be a little difficult to work with, especially if you are a JW. Nonetheless, he shows some potential for becoming a valued contributor to Wikipedia (see my Talk Page to see the discussions that we have had).

Thanks and happy editing!

--Richard 16:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

why were my edits erased?

I thought that my edits were good. They were not from an anti point of veiw. they were true facts with truth. i got from from the book Kingdom of the Cults. please explain further to me why they were erased. thank you have a nice day.Mstare88 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I answered this when you asked it on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. -- mattb @ 2007-03-31T01:24Z

I wonder if Mstare88 also believed that his first edit: "This religon is false. and it is not in any part apartof Christianity. Do not follow this religon" was "good"; "not from an anti point of view"; and "facts of truth". It certainly wasn't a good start for credibility.--Jeffro77 08:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why was my link erased?

I put the link to the Jehovahs Witnesses main site in the beliefs section so that if people want the beliefs they can go straight to the source instead of taking others peoples opinions who are not jehovahs witnesses. People wont use the link because its small an hidden.

Enjoy!

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

Trampton 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC).Trampton 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

talk

if there are any JW's out there please visit my talk page and discuss why you belive thses things. I am a Protestent and would enjoy discussing these things with you. i would like to know more about JW's and maybe we can find common ground on some things. as well a maybe point out were either one of us may be wrong. please reply.Mstare88 15:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that Mstare88 is flaming other users' talk pages with this request, and not just on mine. Groan. Anyway, thanks Matt for answering the question left on my Talk page while I was out of town.--Jeffro77 08:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fnagaton

Hi,

Would you mind notifying Fnagaton that removing messages from own user talk page is inappropriate? I notified him about that, and he removed my notification in this diff. I don't think he's going to believe me about anything at all... --SLi 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The user threatened "Please note that removing messages from your user talk page is not allowed. ... I will have to report you to the administrators" but then retracted that when he realised it's not against the rules.User_talk:Fnagaton&diff=121567016&oldid=121561973 Fnagaton 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get in the middle of your dispute. I care only about the guideline in question. For your interest, you can see my earlier response to SLi on his talk page. -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T18:09Z

Heads-up

Allo. Just a quick heads-up. So it doesn't take you by surprise, I used some pretty strong language on the mos talk page. Just know that it has nothing to do with you (you've been pretty darn cooperative), but rather my strong desire to more definitively resolve the issue.
I'm just bloody tired of people hiding behind an alleged consensus that seems to be off-limits for revisiting. Bladestorm 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I absolutely know the difference between sarenne's actions and other editors who just happen to prefer the IEC prefixes. I don't use sarenne as an example of a typical pro-IEC, but rather as an example of the need to re-open this for full discussion. BTW, I really did mean what I said. If it does end up with a vote, please do notify some editors that you know prefer the IEC prefixes. Because, otherwise, we could end up with them saying, "but I didn't know it was re-opened!" Even if all those notifications end up leading to a majority for IEC, that's still preferable to a perceived consensus on KB if it isn't really deserved. :) Bladestorm 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I hate admitting this, but, um... I kinda still don't get how to use IRC... (eep) (honours degree in computer science and can't even figure out a bloody chat.. um.. thingy) I'm on my way out now for the moment, but, um, feel free to drop a couple links on my talk page for, uh, how to use it? (hint hint) Bladestorm 16:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Thank you for reporting me at WP:ANI/3RR without informing me. Sarenne 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Content removal and citation

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

Hi Matt, regarding my removal of content on the article Jehovah's Witnesses (00:55, 12 April 2007 38.99.8.114 (Talk) (Citation needed to back this up.)) I'd like to apologize for making that edit without examining the article further. You're correct that the necessary references have been cited on that page. Sorry.

Is there any way to tie that statement into its reference a bit closer? It seems the proper thing to do.

Any ideas?

Hey matt, I don't have much time, so I hope this makes sense...
I'm noticing two problems with the binary prefixes discussions. First, it's getting harder and harder to locate the most recent comments. And second, it's taking up the whole page, and that MoS page is about more than just binary prefixes.
Do you think we could/should set up a different discussion page, just for this topic? (So the rest of the MoS stuff doesn't get buried?) Anyways, tell me what you think. Bladestorm 14:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

After a careful review of your contributions to Wikipedia, you've passed my standards for admin nomination. Your RfA now exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt. In moving this nomination forward, please follow these instructions I crafted for nominees I have nominated, as this will help ensure a smooth RfA process for you and success as an admin. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help in any way that I can. Do not forget to accept the nomination, update the time/date of the ending of the RfA to match when the RfA is posted to WP:RFA +7 days and answer the questions on the RfA prior to posting it to WP:RFA. Thank you very, very much for being a willing guinea pig in this experiment. --Durin 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt 2 is now available. Update end time when you post to RfA and answer questions of course. --Durin 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor thing

I'm not going to oppose your RFA for it, and it's quite a minor thing, but I'm not sure that the timestamp in your signature would be readable by the bots that archive pages like the administrators' noticeboard. If that's true, it would impede the bot's ability to archive sections that you were the last to comment on. Again, not a big deal, but something you should probably check on. Ral315 » 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Not your RFA

In your essay you suggest that Wikipedia needs a policy to encourage people to write articles. I was wondering how you envision that in practice. >Radiant< 14:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi. For what it's worth I believe you should seriously consider aborting your RfA and restarting it under a more convenient format. A very large number of people have already indicated that they find the format frustratingly complicated and the experiment has stopped being helpful. The fact is, hardly anyone involved in your RfA is now contributing to any of the sections that actually concern your capacity as an admin and that's not what an RfA should be. Best, Pascal.Tesson 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You might actually want to consider this. When I saw that you had an RFA, I wanted to go and add my 'support' to it... but, um... I have no clue how to use that bloody page. Bladestorm 14:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: PlayStation Portable external link

Thanks for the links, I'll carefully read before doing responding. Carlblackburn 05:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Otheus CmpE '95 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Go Yellow Jackets!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Otheus 09:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your closed RfA

Your RfA has been closed by Dan as unsuccessful because of the format has not yet gained community consensus. Dan suggest that you re-run using the standard format for now and I agree with that, if you run again in the current format I would be more than happy to support you. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I supported you in the test format, I'd be happy to support you in the standard one as well. This is an unusual case, "wait several months before trying again" clearly doesn't apply here. I hope you will. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --Richard 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Matt,

It really is unfortunate that your RfA has become embroiled in debates over "the system" that have little to do with you. While my reasons for opposing you are independent of that, the climate is more tense than usual because it seems the "stakes" are higher. I'm sorry that you have had to suffer through a week of this, and I do appreciate your calmness in directly asking me for clarification.

I know that you intend now not to close XfDs. I believe you. The trouble is that adminship is not divisible. Once you have one capacity, you have them all. As such, I like to make sure that every candidate meets a minimal level of familiarity with a wide-range of admin tasks. I'm glad not everyone comments like I do; I look forward to the success of your RfA, should that occur. I feel it is my role, however, as an RfA "stickler" to point out areas where candidates are lacking. Even if you succeed, it is good for you to remember the limits of your own experience; it is in that spirit that I record my opposition.

My opposition to your candidacy is stronger now than before because I do feel it is very bad form for anyone to reapply at RfA after one day, whatever their reason. If I were you, I would have asked Durin to delay the nomination two weeks or so, just to allow tensions to cool. Adminship is not such an urgent thing. Unfortunately, I do believe that your rapid acceptance of renomination demonstrates "not-good" judgment: I understand the reason you did; the choice simply makes a little less comfortable with you.

As always, though, my opposition is never personal. Despite what others may say, RfA has always been ruled by consensus: part of consensus is the airing of potential problems, and the acknowledgement of their existence. Another part is the graceful acceptance of the community's judgment if it is contrary to one's own. I anticipate that the community will promote, and I look to forward to seeing your good work. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Admins can not know everything. There's simply too much. There's admin area after admin area after admin area. It is therefore a forgone conclusion that all admin candidates will have areas they are lacking. Opposing on this basis is therefore flawed; we would promote no one if that reason for opposition was valid and everyone at RfA lock-stepped with that idea.
• Xoloz, administrators are expected to delete images for a wide number of reasons. Since you have such a horrendously low edit count with regards to images, (only 9 to date, and three of those were just removing speedy tags), it is blatantly obvious that you can not be trusted with the appropriate judgment to handle your administrator duties. If you are not a hypocrite, you would be well advised to stand down from your adminship since you are so blatantly, obviously ill-qualified to be an administrator.
• Matt was encouraged by multiple parties to re-apply, including the bureaucrat who closed it. I see nothing wrong with him re-applying in a "normal" format of RfA. Since the RfA is going so swimmingly well, it's apparent the community seems to feel the same. --Durin 19:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I've replied to Durin's comment (joke?) at his talk page, for the record. Xoloz 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a joke. I found the position you are taking to be hypocritical. You hold your perception of XfD experience against Matt for adminship, yet have even less experience in images. Doesn't make sense. If you think he shouldn't be an admin for lack of XfD experience, then you probably think you shouldn't be an admin either because of lack of image experience. Your quandary. --Durin 20:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Optional question

As a courtesy, I thought I'd drop you a note to say that I've posted an optional question at the RfA. --Dweller 08:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured that Radiant's oppose would prompt discussion about your project space efforts and I thought it would be useful to stimulate a similar discussion about mainspace. --Dweller 15:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The way your response begins, makes it seem as if I've misinterpreted Radiant. I'm sure that's not your intention. If you would consider revising, I'd appreciate it. --Dweller 08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the way your question begins makes it appear you misunderstood Radiant (you ask about mainspace contributions, Radiant's concern was with project space contributions.) Radiant never said a thing about mainspace, that I can see. It also seems that mainspace contributions were addressed pretty thoroughly under question 2. (None of this to say you can't ask anything you like, of course, but it really does look like you misunderstood what Radiant was saying.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's why I wrote "Further to" Radiant. Ho hum. Q2 doesn't talk about the last year. --Dweller 09:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fuhgeddaboutit. --Dweller 09:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Solar cell p-n junction

Hi, thanks for your clarifications at p-n junction. I was wondering if you could help me out with a question about these junctions in the context of solar cells. I left that question at Talk:Solar cell. Cheers, AxelBoldt 16:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tri-Gate Transistor

Hi Matt, please explaine why did you delete article about Tri-Gate transistor.

Thanks for the explanation (btw, i am new to talk pages, so i don't know where should i be answering you in my talk page or yours?).

Now, back to the Tri-Gate transistor, I have B.Sc in Microelectronics and I clearly see that this is a very important and major imporvement of transistor architecture! people worked on it for more than 10 years to make it happen... I agree that the basic consept is the same, but do you know how many types of RAM memory exist? they all share the same consept yet each type has it's own article (or at least an entry in the main article).

My friend wanted to know what is Tri-Gate transistor and looked in the wikipedia, but there was nothing about it... It should not be that way, if we want to make wiki complete.

I don't not know how is in control, but this should be reconsidered...

Thanks for the explanation Matt, I understand the process better now.

Congratulations

Well after a format change and another go at it, you're now an admin. Have fun with the new tools, and get to work already! :) Don't hesitate to ask if you have questions and keep up the good work. Again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 21:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

Congrats, looks like it came out right the second time around at least! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn

He is an admin so either his account has been compromised or he is on a rampage. How would an admin not know how to ref or leave an unsigned vandalsim template warning without any referenc e ot what i have allegedly vandalised [1], ~and of course its my talk page so I cant be blocked for removing his templates, 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)~~

Image:Internet map 1024.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Internet map 1024.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mikeblas 15:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent MoS change

Can you at least add back "Changing all prefixes to binary prefixes is not acceptable, especially when the reliable sources in an article do not use binary prefixes." since it was in a block below that you might not have seen and it's definitely in the spirit of the discussions? Fnagaton 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Tired of showing good faith

Done, but the guideline has already changed because there's a "new consensus", the problem is resolved... yipiii ! MoS and guidelines are really useless/worthless in Wikipedia. You would have blocked me yourself when a "guideline" recommended what I was doing. "blah blah blah blah" would have the same effect. Sarenne 16:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on computer program

The Computer program article is in need of repair. Would you comment on any improvement suggestions? I joined the talk starting with the thread talk:computer program#Definition of a computer program. Timhowardriley 21:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. There are other threads in the talk which I believe could use your input. Timhowardriley 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

binary prefix

Thanks for catching my mishap. The blanking was an accident, sorry. Shmget 04:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Prefixes, again

Well it seems I too have run afoul of User:Sarenne's revision sprees. I saw a (blanked) mention you made of some sort of discussion about this issue. Can you point me to it? Maury 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

WT:MOSNUM ? Sarenne 16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

revert on binary prefix

The email you pointed me too is interesting, and it certainly does not hint in anyway that JEDET has actually decided to 'deprecated' the use of common usage unit. My problem with the current wording is that it misquote the JEDEC standard.

The JEDEC standard state: IEEE/ASTM SI 10-1997 states “This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated.”

the phase "This practice frequently leads to confusion and is deprecated." is not JEDEC's word, but JEDEC quoting IEEE. In the rest of the document when JEDEC want to makes some-one else's standard its own, they make the statement, witout quote then give the original reference, for example:

memory organization: The arrangement of memory cells, either by geometrical arrangement in rows and columns or by organization of the data to be stored. (Ref. IEEE Std 641.)

The wikipedia article is formulated in a way that make it seems that it is JEDEC that affirm that the common use unit are 'deprecated'. That is NOT the case. Shmget 00:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)