Talk:Matthew Good

message: Privacy?  What the f*ck are you talking about?  It's a f*cking blog.  You know, an online journal.  Somewhere for egotists to post their thoughts for OTHERS to read.
If it were truly meant to be private, it could have been made private. --
65.94.55.49, please sign your posts in the future.  Also, Matt Good has specifically stated that his blog is not for general consumption.  Although he could have used .htaccess or a similar protection scheme, he has chosen not to.  It appears to be your position that we should not respect his request for privacy.  Is that accurate?  --Yamla 16:45, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
Yamla, he asked for those whom he didn't invite to refrain from posting comments on his blog.  If he truly cared about maintaining a level of privacy above and beyond that which he asked for, he could have implemented any manner of system to ensure that access to his blog (or comments on his blog) was limited to those whom he had invited.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the damned kitchen.  Which he did. Probably a 'good' thing to do considering how erratic his last few posts were. --MattsLastBrainCell
Thank you!  If this is indeed true, I would not object to us posting a link to his blog here.  We may want to wait a month or so for things to quieten down a bit, however.  However, I do strongly feel that we should wait a bit in any case to see if anyone has any counterarguments.  --Yamla 19:35, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
When the latest blog started, he didn't tell anyone but a few friends.  Jen linked to it by accident, then pulled the link.  Not long after, a few people noticed that the "4 more years" picture on his website was linked to the blog and found it that way.  At that point, Matt specifically told people not to tell anyone about the blog or link to it: "please respect my privacy".  Later, Jen ran out of online photo storage space, so Matt allowed her to put pictures in his blog, which, in turn, allowed more people to find it.  Matt relented, and said that they could read, but only those he invited could post comments.  Finally, after the "incident", he removed all of the warnings and allowed people to run amok, then deleted the whole thing a couple of days later.
The way everything happened, I don't believe he was able to add a privacy scheme like .htaccess or a login utility.  It sounds like while he's been away, he's only been able to update the /blog directory of his website, probably via Blogger.  (He mentioned that he had to get the Universal web folks to move the "4 more years" graphic to the main directory.  I suspect that his letting people run amok came after a phone call to Universal's web team to delete the blog folder, which would have been done first thing Monday morning.)  The blog was never intended to be public, and the only public links to it (save Jen's early one) were made after the incident.
The "OTHERS" he wanted to read the blog were his friends, not his fans or anybody else.  Strictly those invited.  It just didn't turn out that way.  --ChrisB 22:03, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'm for including the blog link. If Matthew Good really didn't want others to find it he'd find ways to make sure no could find it- ways have been pointed out on this page before. Besides, for him to leave his blog on the Internet unprotected and asking others not to find it is like asking people not to photograph Britney Spears out for a jog in Central Park. He's got a right to his privacy but he's also got to be realistic.-RomeW 07:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a freakin' blog 

message: why leave out all reference to the rodchester kings demo? whether matt says to include it or not, it's still part of his history. this is an encyclopedia entry, not a selective history. the subject should not be able to control what goes into it and what doesn't. Cazart! 09:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rodchester kings 

message: Chronological listing or not, it is disingenuous to list the early demos under the heading of the `Matthew Good Band`. The Band had nothing to do with them. I suggest listing them under the solo heading or including a new section altogether.
:Disingenuous?  This is a historical article.  That sentence is there because the demos led to the founding of the band.  They had little to nothing to do with the establishing of his post-MGB solo career.  And there's not enough information about them to warrant splitting one sentence into a brand new section.  In no way does it suggest that the demos or his stint with the Rodchester Kings were part of MGB - it's a one sentence summary of what came before MGB. -- ChrisB 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demos 

message: I'm not against there being a separate article for the Matthew Good Band, but stripping the content out of this article and sending it to that article is absolutely not the right way to do it, and doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines.  (See Wikipedia:Merge for a further explanation of why articles are often combined into a single entry.)
If someone wants to make a DETAILED article about the Matthew Good Band, then do so.  Put it there.  At that time, we can cull down some of the details in this article and refer to the new article.
But, until then, there's no need for two separate articles, especially when the content comes from the same article. -- ChrisB 06:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ridiculously stupid not to have separate articles.  24.141.153.56 10:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Matthew Good Band used to have a separate article. Why on Earth were they merged? This was an idiotic move and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Matthew Good and Matthew Good Band are two completely different entities. The article should be split and the original content of the Matthew Good Band article should be reinstated immediately. 70.53.195.198 (talk) 04:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting the article

message: I'm all for privacy, but I think it's ridiculous to not even briefly mention his wife or their recent separation. It's not like she didn't exist. Blogggg 09:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  privacy 

message: I think we need a section here discussing his many spats with other Canadian bands. He's ripped- to my knowledge- Our Lady Peace, Big Sugar and Nickelback in very public fights, and he's probably slammed several others that I don't know about. Yeah, it's not necessarily positive but it is part of his story.-RomeW 07:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we need an entire section for this, but it could be mentioned in a sentence or two that during his MGB days he was rather controversially honest during interviews and ripped these bands. I think we'd need a good primary source first, though (like a Chart interview or something). Lunapuella 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fights with other bands 

message: I noticed that this page is filed under Category:People with bipolar disorder. I have no idea whether or not this is true/significant/whatever, but in any case, it seems like if it's a big enough "fact" to warrant inclusion in said category, there should at least be some reference to the diagnosis in this article... ideas?
24.19.55.161 16:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly true.  He wrote extensively about it in a recent blog entry.  However, I'm not quite sure how to incorporate it into the article. For now, I think we should just leave it.Davemcarlson 03:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bipolar? 

message: Could the dates surrounding the release of Audio of Being and the dissolution of the band be clarified? The album was recorded in late 2000 / early 2001 and came out at the end of October 2001. Meanwhile, Dave quit MGB for a few days in August then it was announced in November that he and Ian had split permanently, and the band completely dissolved after the new year. The current wording of the section insinuates that there was a two - year delay in the announcement of the break - up. Angelicide 11:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: Matt has announced on his website that he plans to release an EP with some unreleased songs on it. I think that an article should be started. I will make one as long as no one has any objections gravediggerfuneral  —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled EP

message: I read in one source that Matt formed his band in Vancouver. However, another source as is said here through a youtube clip at 3:24, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25MGpwSsisI and other sources say that Matt formed his band in Coquitlam BC which is near Vancouver. Can someone please give me the correct info as to where the Matthew Good band originated?
99.238.83.174 (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Matt Good formed his band 

message: I heard rumors that Matt is either a practicing Buddhist or a practicising Agnostic. Are any of the allegations true?
Spokenwordsegment (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but how is one a practicing Agnostic? Lunapuella (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist/Agnostic? 

message: Ummm, I just wanted to ask if anyone thinks (as I do) that the new photo is much less encyclopedic and much more hard to see / make out?  While it's more "artistic," it really don't think it works.  Comments before I revert?  Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already reverted that photo back in August, and I've just done it now, both times for the exact reason you give.  Greg Salter (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I apparently totally missed this part of the discussion. It's been reverted back to the more viewable photo - but what do you think about still adding the artistic one (in which I am a huge fan) as a secondary photo somewhere else in the article? Or am I pushing it? SylviaBoBilvia (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo change? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Matthew Good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070308095230/http://www.matthewgood.org:80/2007/03/an-actual-entry-about-music/ to http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/03/an-actual-entry-about-music/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matthew Good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714173201/http://www.frostbytemedia.net/matthew-good-to-release-new-album-arrows-of-desire-september-24-via-frostbyteuniversal-music-canada/ to http://www.frostbytemedia.net/matthew-good-to-release-new-album-arrows-of-desire-september-24-via-frostbyteuniversal-music-canada/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Matthew Good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108213259/http://www.matthewgood.org/2008/07/music-i-do-that-too/ to http://www.matthewgood.org/2008/07/music-i-do-that-too/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008112224/http://www.chartattack.com/news/75257/matthew-good to http://www.chartattack.com/news/75257/matthew-good
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130918101648/http://matthewgood.org/news/2013/9/17/arrows-of-desire-full-album-stream to http://matthewgood.org/news/2013/9/17/arrows-of-desire-full-album-stream
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927103652/http://www.voxonline.com/alternative/mgb/index.html to http://www.voxonline.com/alternative/mgb/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070425230548/http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/hospital-music/ to http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/04/hospital-music/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Matthew Good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Matthew+Good+says+goodbye+Vancouver/2081530/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815011439/http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Matthew+Good+looks+back+years+with+Lights+Endangered+Species/4859369/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/Matthew+Good+looks+back+years+with+Lights+Endangered+Species/4859369/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Good being dropped from his label due to allegations of his abuse is a significant event in his career. It has only happened once, and it made the national news in Canada, something much of his career did not. The disbandment of the Matthew Good Band is already in the lead and he could have always made another band. The majority of the article is not cited to anything and should be gutted. However, the allegations are cited and that makes them more worthy of being in the lead. Llammakey (talk) 10:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, I have asked those over at WP:CANADA to weigh in on the subject on whether it should be included or not. Llammakey (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having looked at the references, I don't think the statement about being dropped belongs in the lead. It really doesn't define his career, IMO. PKT(alk) 22:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think mentioning it in the lead is undue weight. The lead should be a summary of the article, and it's a long article. The discussion and talk about being dropped is an extremely minor part of the article, it's three sentences. There is a lot more that could be weighted into the lead before this mention, I'm not convinced it's major enough. It needs to be in the article yes, not arguing against that, but I think it's undue weight to be in the lead. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: It warrants mention in the article, yes, but it's already there. It's not significant enough to belong right in the introduction as if it was the most important thing for anybody to know about him, especially given the fact that the allegations haven't been proven in a court of law. Giving it a couple of lines in the personal life section, which the article already does and Renfreak hasn't tried to remove that, is sufficient; highlighting it in the lede is just putting undue weight on it. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Ok. I will remove the line from the intro as undue weight. Thanks everybody. Llammakey (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nevermind, Renfreak just reverted me again. So this was all for naught. Llammakey (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Renfreak, is going to be a problem if he's going to hang around Wikipedia. Reverting & refusing to communicate with others, won't get him far. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

text: The citations link to a sole online outlet culling info from an Instagram account that has deleted the post providing the so-called proof. If the person making the allegation is now deleting it, then why is this portion of the article still valid? Muffypedia (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped from label