User talk:Matt605

This user may have left Wikipedia. Matt605 has not edited Wikipedia since 5 September 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Library Image

Hi Matt605, I wanted to let you know to drop by Loyola Talk Page for an explanation regarding crediting/licensing images. Regards, --Riurik 05:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link - Wikipedia:Image use policy. The relevant section:

User-created images

"...Also, user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use, unless, of course, the image is intended to demonstrate watermarking, distortion etc. and is used in the related article. All photo credit should be in a summary on the image description page."

Image:Loyola_nola_monroe_library.JPG is credited to you on the image description page.--Riurik 16:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Freeh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Freeh.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The image was tagged as owned by the publisher of "The Pizza Connection" or by "Attorney Louis Freeh" who supplied the photograph to the publisher. So even thought the image was used in the book, it is credited on the title page of the book as having been provided by Freeh to the publisher. I don't know if "provided" means the same thing as identical. Either way, the use of the image is fair use because it is of a famous person. Anyway, it's long gone now.

Your recent edits to American Civil War

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article American Civil War are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! Accurizer 00:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Earhart

Despite the recommendation to explain your contention that the Saipan disappearance claims were valid and the wholly unconvincing argument that you set forth, you have now edited the article to introduce your opinions. You did not have a consensus nor backing from at least two editors that commented on your assertions. Your edit has now rearranged the established format that had been crafted throughout a long year of writing and editing by various authors and editors, just at the time when the article was being reviewed for good article status. You did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. If left as is, all of your submissions will be deleted. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. FWIW Bzuk 11:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I did not delete any of the work of anyone else. I did improve the article's organization and structure, although the formatting codes don't seem to want to take. I did add simple and well-known facts, many other facts are referenced elswhere in the article. The YouTube sources really can't be "sourced" as we would like because YouTube links aren't stable. I will add a cite in Chicago style to that section and provide a link, but the link could go dead.

Otherwise, should we remove all uncited facts from the article? That would trim it down quite considerably. There's plenty of other sensational stuff I didn't add -- like the phony distress calls heard on shortwave frequencies every time Earhart appeared in the newsreels. I also redacted this sentence from my improvements -- "History may forever leave as a mystery what might have transpired between the American feminist icon and the senior officers in the Japanese Imperial Navy that could have led to her summary execution."

Complete nonsense submitted under the spurious claim that the article is "improved" by inserting unverified statements is not acceptable. I have now moved to have your work reviewed as the first step toward a ban. Second level warning now issued. FWIW Bzuk 02:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I promise to keep improving the article. I will not respond to Bzuk until he ceases the slander and apologizes for the insults he has made. Matt605 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What BS- first you attempted to take your assertions to the talk page, were advised to seek consensus, didn't find any and still you went ahead and started making major changes to the article. These were reverted as uncited. Then the claim that the article is biased and inaccurate was made, and after the article has been edited and re-edited over a year's time. You want to make a contribution, start small, submit reliable and verified information, add citations and accept criticism. Unless you do that what you are doing is acting like a vandal. FWIW Bzuk 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I will even concede that some of the editorial writing that you have contributed is actually well-written and sensible but I repeat, make small contributions, find a reference source for contentious or controversial points and then we can talk. Here's an example, you made a statement that the search efforts conducted by the US Navy/US Coast Guard were rudimentary "and uncoordinated". That is a statement that could be challenged – how were they uncoordinated? who said they were uncoordinated? how reliable is the source provided? FWIW Bzuk 23:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I promise to keep improving the article. I will not respond to Bzuk until he ceases the slander and apologizes for the insults he has made. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt605 (talk • contribs) 00:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

I will tag all your unsupported statements with a citation tag and I will give you a suitable length of time to verify your claims. Bzuk 02:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Amelia Earheart

Following a request on my talk page, I have submitted a few suggestions on the talk page of the article and protected the page until the dispute is resolved. I hope that the conflict can be resolved swiftly. Thanks ck lostsword•T•C 01:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matt605 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I am blocked from the talk page. That doesn't make any sense. I have stated above I will not respond to Bzuk until he ceases the slander and apologizes for his insults, and all he has to do is apologize, not even face-to-face. I ask Bzuk to act in a way that would make us all proud, and make Wikipedia the community it aspires to be. Pledge to cease your slander and apologize for the insults you've made. I extend a cyber-hand of friendship and goodwill to you, Bzuk. The person who blocked me said I failed to respond to some warning he made, but neither his name nor his warning appear anywhere on this page.

Decline reason:

Your edit warring is entirely inappropriate. — Yamla 03:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Matt605 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I am blocked from the talk page. That doesn't make any sense. I have stated above I will not respond to Bzuk until he ceases the slander and apologizes for his insults, and all he has to do is apologize, not even face-to-face. I ask Bzuk to act in a way that would make us all proud, and make Wikipedia the community it aspires to be. Pledge to cease your slander and apologize for the insults you've made. I extend a cyber-hand of friendship and goodwill to you, Bzuk. The person who blocked me said I failed to respond to some warning he made, but neither his name nor his warning appear anywhere on this page.

Decline reason:

Your edit warring is entirely inappropriate. — Yamla 03:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla's conclusion does not follow from the premise. I did not ask for an opinion of my actions. I said the warnings that the blocking administrator said he issued do not appear anywhere. Since he did not actually warn me, his block is not justified.

On the subject though, what is the appropriate Wikipedia response to receiving slanderous and insulting language directed at one except to ignore the person? Why is it that the person issuing insults is not blocked and the person being insulted is blocked?

That doesn't make any sense, but it could indeed explain a structural problem in Wikipedia. I ask again, lift the block on me that was imposed without warning and I ask for administrators to urge Bzuk to apologize for his slanderous and insulting remarks, for the good of the Wikipedia community and for the good of his own self too. Wikipedia should not condone, reward, or tolerate rudeness. Matt605 11:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

An admin had carefully warned you about editing against consensus here. You may argue about wordings of warnings or what you did or didn't ask for but the admin insisted you discuss further edits on the talk page, which you did not do. Gwen Gale 04:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gwen, I stopped looking at the page history because Bzuk repeatedly slandered and insulted me there. There is no warning on this page. I ask again for Bzuk to cease his slander and apologize for his slander and insults. I extend a hand of frienship to Bzuk in hopes that he will, and in hopes that he will help make Wikipedia the community it aspires to be. Matt605 17:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrades to Amelia Earhart article

I am blocked from posting to the Earhart talk page, so I can only communicate planned upgrades to the article here. Instead of just citing video statements that appear on Google Video and YouTube, I think it would be an improvement to list the statements verbatim in the article and say where they came from. Then viewers of the Wikipedia page can read the statements and then visit YouTube to decide for themselve whether the statements are valid.

Here is the text I am suggesting should be added:

"My name is Thomas E. Devine. I lived in West Haven, Connecticut. I was involved in Earhart Matter on the island of Saipan on four instances. I saw her plane. I saw the person who was in charge of destroying her plane. I saw markings on a Japanese jail cell indicating her presence. I was shown a grave site by a native island woman that contains the remains of a white woman and a white male who had come from the sky."

"My name is Robert E. Wallack, and, um, I‘m going to talk to you about Amelia Earhart and me finding a briefcase in 1944... And one of the guys knew quite a bit about demolition. He was a demolition guy, and, we had some explosives, and we packed the door of the safe, and, uh, blew the doors off. And, um, Wallack was probably the first one at that when the smoke cleared off, and, uh, I looked in and grabbed a briefcase. I thought, well, [it’s] full of money, I’m going to be a rich Marine! But it wasn’t. It was just as good or better. I grabbed it and ran off with it, and opened it up, and lo and behold, it was Amelia Earhart’s papers, off her airplane. Her briefcase she had off her airplane. I may have been just 18 or 17 just turned 18 that month and, uh, I says “there’s something’ wrong, Wallack.” These things are bone dry. 1938 they told us she crashed in the ocean off the Howland Islands. They would have been wet. They’re not wet. They’re dry. I could see passports and visas and everything else."

"I’m Julious Nabers, from Ballmer, Missisippi. I want to tell you some, a little bit about what I done in the Marine Corps in World War Two time… That’s when the message came from over the radio and I went and got it and decoded it, and it said that we had found Amelia Earhart’s airplane at Asilito Airfield. And I carried it to the colonel. He signed it. I brought it back and put it in the… That evening, about six o’clock or somewhere along in there, I was on the message center, and said uh, there’s a message come over from the island, I mean, the people over in charge of the place there had sent back or something’. It said tomorrow afternoon at 2 o’clock they’re going to fly Amelia Earhart’s airplane. I said, well this is history, we gotta see this. I told my guy I was pretty close to in the message center. So we said George, that George Gibbers, he’s in the wire section cause, and he could get a jeep, cause they had the wire to run the wire lines. So we got around and we left. Went out, went out down around the hangars, and they some tall grass grew there. So we put the jeep out in this grass and we covered it up, where it couldn’t been seen by an airplane fly-over. Then we crawled out to the airfield, the edge of the airfield, and laid down. We waited, oh, about two, two or three hours there, and we decided they weren’t going to. The next day there, this message came over that said “Tomorrow at 2 o’clock, we’re going to destroy Amelia Earhart’s airplane.” Well that was still pretty interesting news. So we did the same thing. Went down, hid our jeep. Got out, crawled out. And down to our right, about a hundred yards, a hundred and fifty yards, there were some guys, that appeared who were Marines. Had on the Marine uniform, the utilities of the day, and they had four or five five-gallon cans sitting around. And a little while then, here came a jeep, pulling this airplane out that was in the hangar. They pulled it across, there was a little bit of slope, I presume there was somebody in it, there had to be. Pulled it across the airfield, pulled it down and parked it. [Can you describe what it looked like?] Well, yeah, it was, well, that scene I was, what I seen was a single wing airplane, best I can remember it. But they crawled up on top of it, and poured three or four cans of gasoline on it, wings, motors, I mean from just one end of it. Then directly here come a P-38, and every so many bullets are tracers, and it come down behind the plane and the plane was headed towards where we was at. He come the opposite direction, firing from the back of the plane and when it hit that fluid and everything, these other guys had gotten out of the way, it went up in a big smoke, fire. It made a humongous fire; and smoke. Well, we weren’t supposed to be there and we realized there was a lot of secrecy about it, so we got out. I have no doubt that what it was Amelia Earhart’s airplane because of the circumstances, and the way it was brought about, the way it was handled. … I don’t know the cause of why they didn’t make it public. There’s a lot about, a lot about those operations that were never made public."

These statements appear on YouTube under in this location and will apparently be included in a documentary film soon:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pyED99gnxy4

Martini, Richard. 2006. "Eyewitnesses to Amelia Earhart's Plane on Saipan in 1944: T.E. Devine, R.E. Wallack, J. Nabers." posted as "What Happened to Amelia Earhart" on YouTube.com. Accessed August 2007.

It's a tricky cite. They are interviews inside an online video clip on a video sharing site, but they will also be included in a documentary that is forthcoming. Any suggestions on how to improve the style of the citation is appreciated.

I'm going to comment on this only once. Please take any further discussion to the article's talk page after your block has expired. I am generally familiar with the documented story of Amelia Earhart's life and am rather deeply acquainted with the many and sundry sources available which describe the circumstances of her disappearance in 1937.

First, I wouldn't characterize any good faith edit to a WP article as an "upgrade." This aside, the approach you suggest doesn't seem to follow WP policy. Raw dumps of unedited quotations from any source are unencyclopedic (WP is not a data dump). Moreover, Youtube is fun and helpful but it is not considered a reliable secondary source and is generally not citable for article text. Lastly, these are all verbal assertions which have never been supported by physical evidence or documentation contemporary with Earhart and Noonan's disappearance (WP:V). Let me say that in another way: Aside from a handful of anecdotes and verbal claims, there is not one shred or hint of physical evidence or documentation that Earhart and Noonan ended their world flight anywhere near Saipan. However, in full NPoV, the article narrative suggested by editor consensus does contain a full paragraph which describes the Saipan claims along with their provenance and a summary of the consensus about them among historians. Gwen Gale 14:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input Gwen. Let's not let ourselves be constrained by the limits of dead-tree encylopedias. There is ample room to include well-sourced material. Some people have complained that the material cited isn't a good source. I've even had a well-sourced quote from Chester Nimitz deleted and a cite deleted one day followed by its fact being deleted for failure of a cite the next. So your belief in my good faith is well founded.

Managing controversy well and avoiding the mind-dead groupthink of dead-tree encylopedias is where Wikipedia can really differentiate itself. Making use of all media types available online is another. Google Video and YouTube are not in themselves bad sources. In fact, they're not sources at all, just places where content exists.

Just like the Saipan theory, there is no physical evidence to support either Crash-and-Sink or Gardner/Nikumaroro after numerous search efforts for decades. And like the Saipan theory, neither CaS nor G/M have direct eyewitnesses. What Saipan theory DOES have is people who say they saw things indicating that Earhart's plane didn't sink, and that Earhart and Noonan may have been on Saipan at some point between July 2, 1937 at 9 a.m. and 1944.

There's also the Chester Nimitz quote and the Goldstein and Dillon biography that details why Earhart's mother believed the Japanese had rescued her.

People have been trying for decades to prove CaS and G/M without success, and now the allegedly uncredible witnesses for Saipan are online and there is space in cyberspace for the inclusion of their statements. Numerous, repeated efforts to prove them wrong have failed. Saipan is more valid than CaS and G/M, objectively speaking. Matt605 17:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll comment

Matt, I am glad to see you back. I certainly retract the comment that you were a troll, but on first blush, that's exactly how you were acting. Not making any major contribution to the article other than in one section, being asked to use the discussion page for contentious issues and ignoring that standard procedure to champion a cause, and then casting aspersions as to the quality of the research and writing, as well as constant and immediate reversions, that's what got my "dander" up. Nothing seemed to be working, not reasoned arguments from a variety of editors and admins, cautions or even the specific intervention of administrators. Think back, is that what you want as your Wiki legacy? If not, I welcome you back into the community of Wikipedia editors. FWIW email me to continue our discourse. Bzuk 19:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My acceptance of Bzuk's apology is posted on his talk page. We all need a fresh start every now then, even me. Matt605 22:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Click

Matt, don't take it personally, the 'Click' takes pride in ganging up on others for the purpose of maintaining their "power". I believe they take enjoyment, in causing the frustration of outsiders. What you experienced, is the standard operating procedure of this group. There are some small people on the site that feel big, when they do what they do. Blocking you during a pole is just another tool in the kit to play their game. When you pull the history on some of those that prevented your input, you will find the Click doing what it does best. You will here quotes of "Good Faith" in the discussion, but follow those back to their user pages and you will see the strategizing to prevent others from treading on "their" articles. Wiki was started with altruistic goals, and I believe some of the "click" may have started out with these same goals. It has developed in some areas sadly, with clicks that are governed by their mob mentality. It reminds me alot of political circles, freshmen arrive with the best of intent, but find to make progress they have to bow to the Click in power. In the end those that remain true to their ideals are squashed or leave in disgust.67.79.187.250 10:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the word is "clique," but it is not something that was at work in this situation. It was a trick of process to silence me while encouraging people to vote, but I believe that some of those voting didn't realize how they were being manipulated by a Wikipedia administrator. I'm very proud of the work I accomplished on the article with and without the other editors. Why do post anonymously to me here? Matt605 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Villadeste11252003.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Villadeste11252003.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]