User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_25) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_27)

DYK for Laguna de Términos

On November 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laguna de Términos, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Restraint

Please use more restraint when adding to the request for clarification; rehashing old arguments is unhelpful. Bear in mind that whenever you make a post reiterating your position, someone else may be tempted to reply, reiterating their position, and so it continues. Last week, this got out of hand, and you were blocked. Your advisors are prepared to block you again if this recurs.

Thus far, no one has responded, and so you can still reduce or remove your post. In general, I advise you to respond only to new information, and with new information. You should also avoid making any post which may be considered pointy or irritating. I recommend you consult with advisors and await a response before adding to the request for clarification. We can also comment on your behalf. Geometry guy 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I removed my post as you suggested. I do think that avoiding all "FAC editors" on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations is unrealistic. I also think reifying the "plague" list and adding to it is the wrong direction to go. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Concerning restrictions on interactions with other editors, I would agree that any house should be built on a firm foundation, and it does not help the community to move forwards to build proposals on this unhappy incident. Geometry guy 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a short comment (#2) on your position re FA. Let me know here if you wish me to clarify this in any way, or if there is further information that you think could usefully be added. Geometry guy 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Mattisse, I have advised you not to make a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia. I've become aware of this [1]. If you wish to make a comment about another Wikipedia editor you must first consult via email with one of your advisors, and then wait for a response - no matter how long that response takes.

Be advised that I will block you for an initial 24 hours if I become aware of you making a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia without having been given advice by an advisor to make such a comment. And depending on the circumstances this block may be extended until an appropriate action is taken by you to remedy any potential harm by making such a comment.

I will discuss this and other related matters with Geometry guy on his talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 09:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(posted on Carcharoth's talk page) I have apologized to Malleus and explained that I mentioned him only as a byproduct of the links on the FAC contributions coming from his page.[2] He has accepted my apology.[3] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Insect projects

Hi, Mattisse. If you can spare a little time from your lengthening to-do list, another editor asked me for some advise and I realised that the job needs more info than I have. Bugboy52.40 has got Insect to GA and is raring to go to work on lower-level insect taxa. Organising the info requires a lot of thought, as there are millions of species, so at least hundreds of genera, and so up the taxonomic tree. Bugboy52.40 asked me if Hide/show boxes would help, and I listed some disadvantages. List-class articles and/or Categories might be worth using. I haven't used these, so I promised to see if I can get some advice. Do you do about List-class articles and/or Categories, or all ways or organising huge numbers of related articles? Do you do know others editors how know much about this type of task? AFAIK you've had no previous contact with Bugboy52.40, and I've enjoyed our (limited) discussions. So I think it would be fine for you to post at Bugboy52.40's Talk page any info, leads, etc. on how to marshal the millions. --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Philcha. I don't know anything about organizing biological information. I could probably learn, but I have no ideas of my own on how it should be done. In fact, in doing a couple of flower and coral articles, I found it very confusing and basically left out the tax box. So I am not sure how helpful I can be. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing

Hi. Thanks for your image uploads. Could you please start using more specific licenses for the government images you upload? Instead of PD-USGov for Fish and Wildlife Service images, use PD-USGov-Interior-FWS, or PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA for NOAA images. Thanks.--Monkeybait (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Monkeybait, but I don't get how to do that. The select box only offers five choices, and there does not seem to be a way to add the ones you suggest. Do you mean that I should add it after, i.e. edit the upload page after it is uploaded? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you will have to change it after you upload it. Unfortunately the scroll box doesn't offer all the choices for licenses.--Monkeybait (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have been adding it after. Are there other licenses I should know about besides those two? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find all the US government license templates here - Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates. Some just add the initials of the govt agency after the "PD-USGov" part, some are not as intuitive--Monkeybait (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well ...

Khrushchev did pass FA. You are cordially invited to the celebration in Red Square. You can stand on top of Lenin's Tomb with me. Problem's going to be digging up enough Soviet weaponry, it's all been scrapped or sold off, to have a good parade. Bring your mittens!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I never doubted it would pass. I heard an author speak on Kennedy's view that Khrushchev was a man with whom he felt he could develop a relationship. He saw a glimmer in Khrushchev and may have made something out of it if he had not been killed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was reading the new bio of Helen Douglas (it isn't very good, really) and it mentions that she was used as a sort of conduit to pass a message from K through Mrs K to Lyndon Johnson (she almost certainly was Johnson's lover). But nothing ever came of that either.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Trillium reliquum

On November 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trillium reliquum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft: Orcs & Humans

Hi, Mattisse, many thanks for fixing some things at Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. I enjoyed the 2nd game in the series over 10 years ago, and recently a found a Web article on history of RTS games, which made a case that Warcraft: Orcs & Humans is the 2nd most important game in the genre - then further articles that agree on its importance (only Dune II ranks more important). Funny how one can get into topics :-) --Philcha (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Nic_kanpurdchat_jatropha.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nic_kanpurdchat_jatropha.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Image.78_robert_johnson_3.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Image.78_robert_johnson_3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Polystichum aleuticum

On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polystichum aleuticum, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

100 DYKs

		The 100 DYK Medal
		Congratulations! It is a pleasure to present you with this shiny gold medal, in recognition of your achievement in reaching this milestone, and with thanks for all the hard work involved. Here's to the next 100 appearances on the Main Page! BencherliteTalk 11:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Big Joe Duskin

Thank you for your quick assessment of the DYK part. Obviously, I would like to see the article make it to full DYK status, and appreciate your alternative hook line. You have far more knowledge of DYK than me, so can I ask you this. Is the idea of the hook to draw the casual reader into the article proper, or provide a snappy one-line overview of the topic ? The reason I ask is, do you think my original hook has an air of mystery that might draw some readers in to explore further, whilst your's partly gives the game away, so to speak ? Or, does it not really matter either way. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue that you bring up is a question of judgment, and opinions will vary. The hook has passed and will undoubtedly be featured as a dyk; the editor filling the dyk queue can select either hook (unless you object to the alternative) or even alter the hook to another version. You are right that the first hook has an air of mystery, as certainly "why" was the first question I asked myself. Also, your hook is shorter which is usually an advantage. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bat star

Hello! Your submission of Bat star at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Addressed on under dyk entry. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK verification

Thank you for verifying the 5x expansion. I didn't do it for DYK but after a few days thought that it was potential DYK material, changing a 3 year old stub to a longer article. That article is no where near finished. I think I can do another expansion from 1k to 20k eventually. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bat star

On November 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bat star, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Antioch Dunes Evening Primrose

On November 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Antioch Dunes Evening Primrose, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bog Turtle

I can't thank you enough for that bog turtle picture.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks-

Many thanks for your help concerning the William B. Slaughter article. I was using the sandbox to try it out so I would goof up the article itself-RFD (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

re List of U.S. states by Alford plea usage dyk

Thank you, I responded at the nom page, with the relevant quote from the cited source. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I corrected my mistake. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Gin Tama

Didn't pay too much attention to the edits, but I would like to know if you finished the copy-edits of Gin Tama. If not, no hurries. Take your time. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I don't feel I know enough about the article to add much. I may copy edit it more, but don't worry about it. Good luck with it! (Did you notice that editor called Tintor4 (talk · contribs)? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy has nothing more interesting to do that creating lots of accounts just to undo my edits and make poor childish insults (and all of them are blocked). I'll see if I can nominate it to GA. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way the article is now a GA.Tintor2 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations. And well deserved! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Hey Mattisse, thanks for tagging that delorazepam article, I shall try and add some refs to it over the coming days. I have been meaning for some time to apologise to you for biting your head off that time on the benzo FAC. I made a comment which was a personal attack and it was over the top and you didn't deserve it. All I can say was I had multiple disputes going on, ADHD arbcom, major benzo dispute, harassed by Mwalla sockpuppets and I was at boiling point, you made some posts which I found not fair and I grossly over-reacted. I delayed apologising to you as I figured that it would not look sincere as I was in an arbcom at the time and thought that you might take it as me trying to make myself look good. This is the season of goodwill so from me to you I sincerely apologise and hope that you accept my honest apology and understand things from my perspective. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for apologizing. It is gratefully accepted. I very much appreciate that you took the time to do so. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome and thank you for accepting. Happy editing and see you around wikipedia. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Friendly request: Sociology reviewer

Hey there. The sociology article has been greatly improved over the past few months and we are looking for reviewers! It isn't of featured status, but I certainly think it deserves higher than its current B rating, ie. GA status. Please be a reviewer, or lend further advice! --Tomsega (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooops...

Sorry, I did not mean to hit the rollback button as I was stepping through diffs, I've rolled back my rollback, so it should be back to the version you last edited. I do apologize. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK checks

Hi Mattisse, I noticed a few DYK hooks that you rejected because they were too short, but that had been moved from userspace recently. According to rule F3, an article still counts as new if it has been in userspace before. Just a friendly reminder for the future. Ucucha 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't too short the same whether they have been move from userspace or not? Too short is under 1500 characters, regardless of the article history. Is this not true? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I may not have been as clear as I should have been. Take Naval Reserve Armory as an example. This is currently 1992 b (enough) and was moved from userspace on Dec 3, but you rejected it because it was not expanded fivefold. Ucucha 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit of an overreaction. I quite appreciate your contributions to reviewing DYKs; I just wanted to note a rule you may not have been aware of. I hope you'll keep reviewing in the future. Ucucha 02:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statement

Hi Mattisse. Your statement on the clarification page says that you checked the FAC for the Swedish Allotment System and found no familiar names. However, I notice that Bishonen is given prime credit for the article in the first line of the nomination, [4]. Might it be a good idea to revise your statement somehow? --Slp1 (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not read the statements. I was looking for the signatures of nominators. In any event, I corrected the spelling and added to the references; I did not "tag" Swedish allotment system. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like it was a pretty cursory check of the FAC, then, since the crediting of Bishonen is rather obvious, to me at least. But in any case, I still suggest that you update your statement, because the rather narrow focus of your search is not clear from the phrasing you have used there. --Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In any event, I did not "tag" Swedish allotment system. Please remember that there are many many articles on that list, and in order to make any kind of change in any article at all, I have to go through the edit history, then locate the FAC page and do a quick run through for signs of editors with whom I may be "in conflict", and glance through the talk page. That is a lot to do for the honor of changing a spelling error and adding the language to reference citations. Is it the consensus is that I cannot make constructive edits to an article can be seen by some as one of Bishonens'? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you simply click on the history and then the helpful "Revision History Statistics" tool. Something which you know about and have used in the past.[5]. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I said that I check the recent history of the article, the original FAC page, the talk page etc. in order to fix a spelling error. But I cannot read through all that in detail. How far back should I have gone? How much of an hours time should be spent checking the edit history for names of entitled editors to correct a small error? How far back should editors go? It can take a fair amount of time to check the entire edit history, at least on my computer. Hopefully this arbitration will clarify if, like Risker says, articles are owned and those of us not in an ownership position will not edit those articles. By the way, what is the name of your previous account that gives you entitled status regarding the article? At least you have explained why you seemed to come out of nowhere (I had never heard of you) and involved yourself in my arbitration. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As is clearly marked on my user page, I was user:mcginnly - it's a now abandoned account - I never had any interactions with you with that account as far as I'm aware. You really don't need to go digging into talk pages, FAC pages etc. revision history summary tells you quite clearly who the principle editors of an article are. I became aware of you during the advisory council spat. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never looked at your user page. But I will try to remember and avoid you and your past account, as apparently you consider yourself "in conflict" with me. I have been told that it is important to read the article talk page. Where is there a concise "revision history" than does not entail going back through several years worth of revisions? You pointed to this[6] above, but going through that takes forever. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I simply don't believe you don't know how to do this, but nonetheless.......1. on any page click 'history' that's at the top between 'edit this page' and 'watch'. Hopefully this will be a familiar page. This is what the history page of today featured article looks like [7]. A couple of lines above the big 'compare revisions' button is a line that starts with External tools: Revision history statistics. 2. If you click on that link It should be pretty clear who the principle editors are. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Or you can use [8] - simply enter in the name of the article to check. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not know about the edit history statistics button. That is much easier than stepping through the article. The problem is that it give raw edit numbers. There are FAs that I have copy edited where I have more edits than the article's owner, but that did not give me ownership. In the article in question, Bishonen only had 19 edits. Is that enough to give ownership? I have more than 19 edits to hundreds and hundreds of articles. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And an easy way to check the FAC is to click the direct link to the article's FAC at the top of the talkpage of each article. I don't doubt that you can make constructive edits to all sorts of articles. The question is, is editing some articles the wisest choice at present? Yes, checking is a lot to do, but if you are wanting to help with FAs and are seeking to avoid editors with whom you have been in conflict in the past, (and unnecessary drama all round), then it would likely be the strategic approach. Especially if you are considering doing more than correcting typos and other copyediting. BTW, do you think your comment about Bishonen and article ownership above might be better struck? I think that would be the strategic move too, to be honest. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen did not nominate the article for FAC. Now that I read all the text, I see that she was "thanked". I think the concept of "ownership" is unwieldly. You are saying I cannot make a constructive edit to an article just because an editor was "thanked". —Mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am not, as you will see from a careful reading of my comment. And the Bishonen FAC credit was a little more than just being thanked, too. But actually that's not my point, which has nothing to do with potential ownership issues (somebody else's problem, which we can't control) and everything to do with being strategic about how we spend our time/energy, in order to get the maximum out of life, the universe and everything. We all have the freedom and the power to engage in articles or not, and I have regularly chosen to unwatchlist pages because the editing environment became unpleasant and a waste of my time. It was my choice, my decision, and my WP time was much more enjoyable and purposeful as a result. (And what do you know, sooner or later, the issues I identified all got solved, because other editors took up things up. Guess what, I'm not indispensable! What a relief!)

All this to say that I am unclear why you would seek restrictions on your edits, instead of taking charge yourself. I think you actually know that it is best to avoid articles by editors with whom past interactions have been difficult. The checking of the FACs, even if just for the nominators was a sign of that. It seems that you above have learned a few more techniques about how to quickly find out who has been involved with what, so that you can make informed decisions about your actions and edits. In my view, it would be most inappropriate for 'involved' editors to complain if you helped with copyediting and minor fix ups. But making posts to those same articles that basically boil down to the fact that you don't think that the article meets FA standards is impolitic, even if true. Let somebody else do it, and keep your dignity, control and freedom to choose to edit or not to edit intact. Oh and I do appreciate that you have modified your comment about Bishonen above. Great decision.--Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I seek such a restriction as that would be clear. As it is, I get criticized for making a spelling correction to a FA article, as in Swedish allotment system where I made a spelling correction and was condemned for it. (See criticisms in the current arbitration.) If I am simply restricted from editing all FAC related activities, including edits or spelling corrections to any FA article, that will be a clarification. I will not copy edit or remark on the talk pages of any FA ariticle4, and this will free me from such criticisms that include even making a suggestion on an FA talk page.[9] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you want, why don't you just make the decision to avoid all FA related activities yourself? Take charge. Say so publicly and then really stick to it. Why do you seek external controls and disempowerment instead of taking control yourself and deciding on what you already seem to know is the best course of action? Self-determination followed by self-control and self-monitoring is the way to way to increase not only your own self-respect but also the respect of others. Enough psychobabble.... That's my last.--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would rather arbcom take the responsibility. That will aid me in turning down requests to edit. I will then refuse to edit any article that is headed for FAC; for example, many GANs are headed that way. I do not want to edit an article that I cannot follow through the process. Many of the GANs I have completed have gone to FAC. If the ban were in place, I would be careful about where the articles I edited were headed. I probably would do no more GANs. I could point to the ban as a reason for turning down edit requests. It would save me from having to constantly re-explain. Plus, it would make it very clear to me what the parameters were. I never would have guessed that correcting spelling errors, for example, would be a reason for an uninvolved editor to bring a complaint to arbcom. Yet that is what happened. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To me Mattise has made the right call on this article. Its a 2005 FA which looks well off the current standards. It looks to me that Mattisse has acted in good faith on article and its talk page. --Salix (talk): 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Dear Mattisse - your current trajectory at the Request for Clarification is taking you right in the direction of another block. You overreacted to Jooperscoopers post without consulting with your advisors (as far as I am aware), and are now acting as if you think you can solve Wikipedia's problems. You have to trust Arbitrators to make good decisions. Restrict your comments purely to clarifications of questions by other editors, and stop trying to make a point, or you will be blocked to prevent further disruption of process. Geometry guy 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above and I will go a step further. You have previously caused problems in the Request for Clarification with your tendency to escalate matters and have previously been strongly advised to consult with your advisors before making comments on others. So I am warning you not to make ANY further comments, amendments or edits to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor. If you do make a comment, amendment or edit to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor, then I will block you for 24 hours.

Sometimes all that is needed is a pause for thought. Too much damage is done by people responding too quickly (and emotionally rather than rationally) to rather minor edits. I have asked Joopercoopers for a fuller explanation for the reason for that user's frustration. If Joopercoopers shows good reason for the frustration, then you and I will need to discuss how best to deal with this particular incident and how to prevent it in future. SilkTork *^YES! 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the above, and consequently have blocked you for posting to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification without consultation subsequent to this warning. Given that your post was a minor update, I have only blocked you for 12 hours. However, your post was also indicative of a problem: that you believe your latest editing statistics are relevant to the case. If you had consulted advisors, we would have told you to stop making such updates. The arbitration case is about disruption, and avoiding it in the future, not about numbers of edits. Geometry guy 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Geometry guy. I fully recognize my ridiculous achievements on Wikipedia are laughable. Didn't think that pointing out my stupid achievements were worthy of a block. But you know best. I think that after diminishing an editor's self esteem, you cannot expect that editor to ever edit again with confidence. I surely will not ever feel able again to believe that I have anything to add to this encyclopedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "I am warning you not to make ANY further comments, amendments or edits to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor. If you do make a comment, amendment or edit to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor, then I will block you for 24 hours." did you not understand? I am extending your block to 24 hours per SilkTork's warning. Geometry guy 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you have a block does not mean that we do not appreciate your work on wikipedia, its just that we need to prevent another incident exploding, and the only way that seems to be achievable is with a short block. Hopefully being a bit calmer in a day will help. --Salix (talk): 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with this block, as I do with the 'any edit' sanction placed by SilkTork above. Asking Mattisse not to comment further on the joopercoopers incident without advice is appropriate but asking her not to edit at all in the request for clarification is not. However, since I did not weigh in earlier (I did see silktork's note but internalized it as referring only to the jc incident - yes, I should read more carefully), and because I know that discord amongst advisors will probably work against Mattisse, this is meant as a non-actionable comment. (I should add that Mattisse is proud of her accomplishments on wikipedia - do we want to kill that pride?) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus of other advisors is that Mattisse does not need clear and unambiguous guidance from her advisors, and that she should be free to deviate from that guidance accordingly, then I wish such advisors good luck. I am perfectly happy to resign my advisorship if that is the case. Geometry guy 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I endorse G Guy's block. I understand Mattisse's frustrations. I hope she is able at the moment to appreciate our own frustrations, and to respect how much time we are devoting to this issue.

I also understand RegentsPark's disagreement regarding the sanction. I would, however, rather err on the side of caution than undo a lot of the good work that has been accomplished recently. The RfC page is a hotspot - it is an arena where things have and can again spark off quite quickly, derailing the progress we have been making. Mattisse is herself aware that there are incidents and arenas which cause her stress and cause her to say and do things that create problems.

To remind Mattisse, I will point out User:Mattisse/Plan#Coping_techiques:

Techniques to reduce stress:

1. Disengage from interactions in which I feel stress or negative emotions before my behavior become problematic.
2. Consciously copy the editing behavior of good role models such as SilkTork and Geometry guy, especially their methods of disengaging early in a discussion.
3. Consciously be aware that I do not have to address points registered against me, but can choose to disengage instead.
4. Refrain from tendency to answer every point made in remarks to me.

...

8. Edit at a lesser volume
9. Initiate frequent consultation with trusted advisers/mentors to gain perspective and to prevent the build up of stress
10. Follow the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past.

And User:Mattisse/Plan#Consequences_for_failure_to_adhere_to_plan:

This proposal is an escalating series of consequences for a failure to adhere to the plan, ending with a return to the jurisdiction of ArbCom:

1. Wikibreaks as suggested by my mentors/advisers
2. Temporary page or topic bans

Punishments:

1. Short blocks after a warning
2. Punishment in the form of blocks of escalating length, after warning.

We are carrying out the plan as drafted by Mattisse and approved by ArbCom. SilkTork *^YES! 00:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Frank Zappa & author Dave McGowan

Hi there, just curious as to why you removed a supporting source, however "unreliable" you may deem it, and reverted instead to a totally unsupported statement? Re: this edit comparison, and precisely this statement "The family moved often during Zappa's childhood because his father, a chemist and mathematician, had various jobs in the US defense industry." and this reference http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html -- doesn't it seem somewhat inappropriate and inaccurate to slap a "spam" moniker on a very specific reference providing (or attempting to provide) very specific support? As Wikipedia is a work essentially forever in progress, doesn't that fairly carry to its supporting research? I wouldn't call honest attempts at support "spam", and I'd think most minds would not welcome speedy attempts to scrub honest ongoing research. EastGhost (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

More Zappa

Fwiw, I agree with your removal of the tag. I had inserted it to avoid biting 71.190.97.179. Cheers, DVdm (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your words. I am the second author of that article and I tend to watch over it. For some reason it gets a lot of vandalism. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mons Venus

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mons Venus. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mons Venus. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

George Eliot

I have reverted your addition of the {{refimprove}} tag as a brief glance at the bibliography shows that the article is in fact thoroughly referenced to reliable sources. Whilst in-line citations may be preferred by some there is no policy mandating them. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am adding some {{cn}} tags at some of the points that need to be specifically referenced, regardless of general references the reader must comb through at the bottom. General references at the end of the article are not enough to comply with WP:V and WP:RS for specific facts. Large swaths of outsourced material is not ok. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your posts at User talk:Geometry guy#New pages per Request for clarification

My comments linked to above were made in the context of the conversation on the evolving "Clarification" and were not intended to be reified. The Clarification has not been settled and I do not intend to do anything more than follow their strictures. As stated previously, only statements with definite time frames are to be taken literally. To say that I will not do DYKs in response to a casual comment on my talk page means "for now" as I made clear on the DYK page. (I tend to to dozens of DYKs at once and get burned out and so stop for a while.) As for FAR, FAC, processes, I will abide by the Clarification mandates. FA processes are much less rewarding and massively more draining and more punishing than DYK or GAN so the likelihood for my engagement in the future is dramatically less. (But nothing is permanent. Change on Wikipedia should be welcomed and not forbidden, and evolving statements should not be stored to use as traps.)

I will follow the Clarification outcome regarding FA processes as well as other processes. If the Clarification mandates it, I will also refrain from improving, correcting spelling and grammar, evaluating sources and such for articles that already at FA status. I used to try to check the "Main Page" article for errors but will no longer do that for the time being. I'll let the errors remain for now. I used to be told to comment on the article talk page, but since that seems to enrage FA article owners, I will no longer do so for FA articles for now. To repeat, I will abide by the Clarification outcome. Remarks where I am thinking out loud or sending up trial balloons to my mentors or other should not be used as attempts to trap me in the future. Rather than follow my every trial remark to my mentors or to posters on my talk page, let's all agree to follow the directions of the ArbCom. It is agreed that we are all human here, isn't it? And after all, the cultural atmosphere dominating at the FA processes may change in the future and become more pleasant and rewarding. Anything can happen, so no comment or "thinking out loud" statement that I made or will make should be considered permanent to use as a trap, as all that does is shut down on wiki conversation between me an my advisers, not a goal to be sought. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that My Plan be modified to take into account what ArbCom currently sees as my problems. Much of the plan concerns behaviors I no longer engage in. Making off-the-cuff comments to posters on my talk page regarding dyk, and thinking out loud to my mentors are not problems the arbs mention as major. If these sorts of complaints are encouraged on the "alerts" page, that page will soon degenerate into the "circus" and/or "train wreck" that the Arbitration and Clarification did because of the volume of trivial, misleading complaints made there. Minor, frivolous complaints, or complaints that target human venting in frustration that are not uncivil or personal attacks, out-of-date complains, voluminous, wordy complaints, or complaints by editors who are not involved in the incident but are merely following my contributions and talk page looking for incidents to report should be discouraged. The complaints should be by stake holders, not the police. Further, as they did in the Arbitration, in the Clarification arbs recognize that much of the complaining about me is frivolous or unwarranted or just plain wrong. e.g.[10] Please, let us concentrate on what is important and recognize that I am fallible but trying. At a time when the subject is whether or not I will be banned from FAC, DYK etc., statements of ventilation by me made in personal contexts should not be help against me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noted the comments made by SandyGeorgia, and further replied to them. Your apparent perception that she was trying to reify your posts does not allow for the alternative interpretation that she was simply drawing attention to failures on your part to stick to your plan. However, there are more substantial issues than these.

1. Any changes to your plan require the approval of Arbcom. Until such changes are proposed and approved, any failure to stick to your plan could result in a block from one of your advisors at our discretion (in accordance with the currently passing motion 7.1).
2. You responded to an editor with whom you have been in conflict (SandyGeorgia) without consulting (as far as I am aware) with advisors. Further, your comments suggest an assumption of bad faith. I recognise that you made an effort not to personalize, be confrontational, or escalate, and so am not taking any further action for the time beingin respect of this. However, you should be aware that any posts that might be perceived as responses to editors with whom you have been in conflict may result in a block. Think, or even simply wait, before you respond.
3. Concerning the DYK quote, I accept that this was an off-the-cuff remark which you partially retracted. Again, this shows a lack of patience on your part: wait and think before you post.
4. In that thread, I am actually more concerned by your comment that "I see a new group has taken over dyk". I also see above your comment that "the cultural atmosphere dominating at the FA processes may change in the future and become more pleasant and rewarding". Your perception of in-groups has contributed significantly to the position you are in now. It is a harmful perception.
5. Wikipedia is not the place to vent your frustrations. It is an encyclopedia.

To end on a positive note, I can see you are trying, and am glad you recognise your own fallibility and are showing a greater willingness to tolerate the fallibility of others. Geometry guy 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for your additional post on my talk page. I have rephrased the above. Geometry guy 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here

• Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
• Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
• Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
• User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

Arbcom motion

Mattisse, now that arbcom has done with the clarification and we know where we all stand, I do suggest that you ask before you post anything that remotely comments on an editor. And, please, please don't respond to anything without first getting some input from one of your mentors. You are at an immense disadvantage (possibly for good reasons) in any discussion and you should recognize that if you get into a back and forth with anyone you are almost certainly going to end up with a block. Which, I suspect, cannot be nice at all. There is plenty of stuff to do on wikipedia, and moving on is always a good idea!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you. I will not be posting on wikipedia regarding anything significant and will try to reduce my posts to near zero. Any posts I do make will be accompanied with profuse apologies. This is my opinion only and based on my experience only. I apologize in advance if it offends anyone or is taken as a personal attack by anyone. It is not meant as such and is, as I say based on my personal observations and experience only. Warmest regards, Mattisse

"Any posts I do make will be accompanied with profuse apologies." That would not be helpful. Neutral posts without any attached baggage are what people are looking for. We are here to build the encyclopedia - the talkpages are here to assist in communication about the encyclopedia - as such please reduce comment about yourself and others as much as possible. While we are permitted to make casual and chatty comments, especially on our own talkpages, this should be kept to a minimum, especially if there have been issues about the ability of a person to communicate without conflict. Any frustrations you feel about being under scrutiny, and whatever unfairness you feel should be kept off Wikipedia - even off your own talkpage. This is not the place to be airing your frustrations and hurts. Share your personal anxieties and pressures with real life friends, or via email with your advisors, but not here on Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg

File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Colin Clouts Come Home Againe

On December 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colin Clouts Come Home Againe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Patronage (novel)

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patronage (novel), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for good wishes

Many thanks you for the messages when I needed support. I will have to take it slow for some time, but I know where my WP priorities and friends are. --Philcha (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Good Friend Award
		When I really need you, Mattisse - from --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for this. I was worried. So good to see you on the road again! Warmest regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Removing citation tags

See User_talk:Cody574#Removing_citation_tags. Cody⁵⁷⁴ 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When you did this:[11] you removed the "citation needed" tag. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to revert something else. You can blame Lupin for making his anti-vandal tool all bunched together and messy. Cody⁵⁷⁴ 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the apology. The tools can be confusing. It should not be too difficult to find references for the material you added. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Old Wives' Tale (play)

On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Old Wives' Tale (play), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Mothers' inner conflict?

I posted this on Usenet earlier today. Any idea? - DVdm (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My take on the snippet is similar to the person who answered your usernet post. User:HJensen, the editor who wrote the article would be the one to ask. I did the copy editing and was amazed at what I did not know about Zappa until I had gone through the article. I definitely underrated him; in those days many of the "hip" were not musically sophisticated enough to comprehend him, or intellectually sophisticated enough either. He was operating over our heads and following his own path; anyone who thought they could predict his performances or the directions he would take would have been wrong. I don't think his aim was to please an audience in a normal sense. When I read he played a bicycle as a musical instrument on his first appearance on the Steve Allen Show, I knew he was a genius following his own script. (There used to be a photo clip of that in the article.)

User:HJensen has the insight, understanding and appreciation of Zappa to give you a meaningful answer. He semi-retired from Wikipedia due to a travesty of events, but he still comes around sometimes and he usually answers his talk page. I am sure he has a feel for what was going on then.

We really worked uphill on that article as not many Wikipedians seemed to appreciate its depth.

Warmest regards,

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll put a similar message on HJ's talk page. Hope to see him back soon.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Super 2010! Cheers and keep up the good work. DVdm (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Mattisse!

I know you and I don't get along too well, but I wish nothing but wonderful things for you. Have an excellent holiday and a more excellent 2010. Merry Christmas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Christmas, Mattisse. This place would not be the same without you, and I hope you have a wonderful and productive 2010 in Wikipedia. --JN466 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Greetings of the Season
		A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I echo Moni's sentiments, and wish to add that I hope the New Year brings you great joy and happiness! UA 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK hook is too long

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at CeeGee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK - Microchromosome

The online version is only in PDF, here is the [[12]] I left the one I used because it gives the full citation which the PDF does not - and you can click to the PDF on the right menu from that page. Obviously it would take about 5 seconds to change this, let me know if I should. Thanks for your work. Peace, Earthdirt (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For DYK, the hook must be in the article with a reference sourcing it at the hook's end. I left a note on the dyk page where I thought I found a source in a PDF link there. Is that what you are referring to? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely many have asked you ...

... about Matisse ... which is what I've read your username as since I've seen it. Not that there should be any connection or affinity between you and Henri lol, but for the record, his and my life overlapped about 3 months. I arrived, he left. (Hope it wasn't anything I did. ;-)

In any case, I see you have dedicated much good work in the area of WP:Featured articles... and I am just now looking in that direction (having done my stint at RC patrol, and some current events wrangling on high profile BLPs).

The question of what "good" means in Wikipedia is something I must develop my understanding of. If you know of any essays you believe shine a "good" :-) light on that, please share them. Happy holidays and best wishes for a beautiful 2010. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 01:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't think of any specific essays to read. Just do a lot of reading, especially of articles and article reviews by editors. Everyone has their own definition of what "good" means. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciate your taking a moment to think amidst holidays. re: "Everyone has their own definition of what "good" means." - That's what I was afraid of. :-) Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 17:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

ARA Uruguay

Greetings:

Thanks for your review of the DYK.

I was wondering how to progress the movement, since so much time has been spent going around that I don't want the clock to run out. I think the article is important due to the rich history of events in which this ship participated.

Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF means that I accepted the Spanish language source for the hook in good faith. Since my Spanish is faulty, I will trust that you are translating the source material correctly. So, all is good! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Alexander VI

Hi. I want to add my translation of a humanist′s poem about Pope Alexander VI to the article about the Pope (together with the Latin original). Can you look at my English attempt? Is it correct? Thank you.

Who sacrificed quiet to hatred, with a warrior heart,

who did not stop at quarrels, struggles and slaughters,

is lying here in the coffin for all people to rejoice,

thy supreme pontiff Alexander, oh, capital Rome.

Thou, prelates of Erebus and Heaven, close thy doors

and prohibit the Soul from entering thy sites.

He would uproar the peace of Styx and disturb Avernus,

and vanquish the Saints, if he enters the sphere of stars.

--Aloysius (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• (Aside to mattisse) Does this mean you are an expert in Latin? (Excuse the interruption, just making a mental note for future reference) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) I had to rewrite this as I lost it in an edit conflict. Nearest I can remember I said that I am not an expert in this, but the only part that does not work in English is "He would uproar the peace of Styx" —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. So I suggested "He would upset the peace" or "he would disrupt the peace" or some wording like that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• (Apologies re EC, won't happen again.) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's okay. It is really rare to lose the edit entirely. Usually it is retrievable. Don't know what happened there. Some kink in the wiki workings. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sagittaria lancifolia

On January 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sagittaria lancifolia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The Did you know? project 00:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Keep warm, keep well. SilkTork *^YES! 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Eve GA

This user helped promote Arthur Eve to good article status.

Thanks for your involvement in the development of Arthur Eve which has become a WP:GA in recent months. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and congratulations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:I changed you dyk hook - please check

Yeah, that works. Thanks. The Flash ^{talk} 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Larry Dell Alexander

I've fixed the sourceing issue. For the DYK hook.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook on Mashallah Shamsolvaezin

Thanks for shortening it, it looks great! I linked to some sources about Shamsolvaezin editing newspapers, and added that fact back in. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Beautiful Eyes GA

Hi! I didn't want to review the article, I just wanted to give my thoughts on it. Candyo32 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Per your statement[13], I have removed your name as reviewer and noted on the review page that the review needs to be completed by another editor. I commented on your talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Illinois Tollway

I saw the review and thought that I had addressed all of the concerns. I then left a message for the reviewer on Jan 10. Please take a look let me know what you think. Racepacket (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should address the points made at Talk:Illinois State Toll Highway Authority/GA1 to clarify what has been changed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any that you feel that I have not addressed? I have worked hard to address all of them (and also left one comment of explanation), and appreciate any feedback that you may have. Racepacket (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Crowded House GAN

See talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Hey Mattisse, I noticed you transcluded the GA review at Talk:World War II. It's actually already transcluded further up on the page, so I've undone yours. Thanks anyways though! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about that! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it turns out you also transcluded the WWII GA review at the Ulysses S. Grant talk page here. I've also undone that. Happy editing! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake

For whatever this is worth, I trust your edits to this article and am not deliberately editing over you. I'm not keeping track of who is inserting what as edits are being made too quickly. I apologize if we're conflicting. I appreciate what you are doing and I am glad we are working toward a common goal. --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative spirit on 2010 Haiti earthquake

I'm impressed by the collaborative work on this article about an unfolding disaster. However, such articles also generate stresses and frustrations. While this edit raises issues about selective use of source material, it isn't phrased in a way conducive to collaboration. In particular, the suggestion of article ownership in the last sentence is inappropriate and unhelpful in this context, as well as being contrary to your plan: I advise striking it. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. If you would like any further clarifications about the spirit of good collaboration in this context, let me know. Geometry guy 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. I have struck all comments and I will not contribute further to the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why have you struck all comments? Slow down Mattisse: it is this kind of rapid over-reaction that you have to guard against. Geometry guy 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• <outdent added> Because it is wrong to become involved in articles. I made a mistake in doing so, but thank you for reminding me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't wrong to become involved in articles, as long as you are able to step back to see the encyclopedic perspective, and avoid personalizing disagreements. You've contributed a lot to this article and have done so primarily with the needs of the encyclopedia in mind, so you should feel good about that. If you need to step away for a bit and do other things, that is fine: you don't have to make statements about your future plans. Geometry guy 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I made many fine contributions to the article, but that was a mistake on my part and I regret that I did so. I am making an effort not to contribute in substance but I made a mistake in this situation. I hugely regret it. I hope I know better now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• You will have a better perspective to evaluate your contributions and experience in a few days. Geometry guy 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

*Yes, I have removed it from my watchlist and will not follow it. It will become an unhappy memory that hopefully will fade. But it will help me not to make that mistake again. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

leading to ban

(outdent) Mattisse, best, always, not to react in anger. I quick look shows you're doing a fine job on the article and other editors appear to appreciate that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Geometry guy reminded me how dangerous it was to comment. I am not reacting out of anger but rather out of fear. I have struck all comments. Hopefully this will put this incident to rest and it will not need to be spoken of again. I will avoid any future active involvement in articles. I am trying not to make any substantive contributions. I having no longer been doing reviews of any sort, nor participating in FAC, FAR or GAN reviews. I have not been copy editing articles as I did in the past. I did participate in DYK but I will avoid that for now. It was a mistake on my part, a lapse from my policy to get involved. Regretfully, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • <IMPORTANT>It is not dangerous to comment; problems arise when you act in haste. I have undone your precipitous strikes. For your own protection and that of the encyclopedia, I am banning you from editing 2010 Haiti earthquake and its talk page for 36 hours from this timestamp. I hope this will provide you time to think about the matter with more perspective. I expect you will follow this ban; you may be blocked if you do not. Thanks, Geometry guy 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• <outdent added> I guess I have no choice in anything, not even in withdrawing comments. I will try to be very careful not to get involved in anything else that may bring attention in the future. I am avoiding any substantive contributions and will continue to do so, so as not to bring attention. This incident was a horrible mistake. I deeply regret that I contributed so much to the article. I learn from this to avoid contributions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• You always have many choices, including the choice to wait. Geometry guy 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does that mean that I can withdraw the comments at a future date? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Striking comments is typically a courtesy

• Whenever you make a comment (or any contribution to Wikipedia) you agree in the edit window to release it under the Creative-Commons-Share-Alike and GFDL licenses. As such it cannot be withdrawn. Striking comments is typically a courtesy to other editors; it cannot be used to prevent reuse or further comment. If you want to strike comments in the future, discuss it with your advisors. Geometry guy 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• So when you tell me to strike a comment, I actually cannot do that, except as a courtesy? I will remember that in the future, that I cannot strike comments at will. Could you provide documentation that comments cannot be struck? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Semantics. Of course you can strike a comment, but every edit is recorded in the edit history, including this one. Geometry guy 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

*Of course I know that. So what could you mean that striking comments is a courtesy? I guess the safest route for me is to make no comments. I will resist engaging, contributing, and in any way becoming involved in an article. Meanwhile, apparently I am banned from the one article that I make substantive contributions to! Lesson learned. Do not make substantive contributions, and do not make substantive comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Striking comments is a courtesy because it is a widely respected form of deescalation: "I know I said that, but on reflection, I wish I hadn't". You are only banned for 36 hours (now 35) and only from a page which you said you never wanted to contribute to again, so that's no hardship. Quit complaining. Geometry guy 01:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Quite confusing and makes no sense to me! I will disregard the whole thing and wait the 36 hours to strike my comments. I am complaining that I cannot contribute to an article in which my contributions have been acknowledged as substantive, without getting my head chopped over. Wow, and just more wow. I am glad to learn that my contributions are not wanted on Wikipedia. That is very clear. It furthers my resolve to avoid any substantive contributions, as it is apparent that Wikipedia does not value what I do. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

please explain

I have made nothing but positive (constructive) edits to the article. Indeed, my adittions with references have straightened out may confusions. But because I was directed to strke out comments to the talk page and did so, I am banned from the article? As I have stated, I have no intention of every contributing to the article again, but what is the logic to this ban? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your actions have consequences: the ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions. You have another c. 24 hours to think about it, and how you might have acted differently. Here are some questions which might help you.

• You struck the comment I asked you to strike, and this remains struck. Do you still wish to strike your other contributions to the talk page? If so, why, and how would it help to improve the encyclopedia?
• Do you wish to contribute to the article in the future? If so, why do you repeatedly state that you will not and that contributing to the article was a "mistake"? If not, then why all the fuss?
• Where did you learn that disregarding others' comments, especially those of your advisors, was a good idea? And where did you learn that "wow and more wow" is acceptable discourse for an editor under conduct probabation?

Take your time to read and reflect before you reply. Geometry guy 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

<reply below>

I have looked over this incident, and these are my observations.

• Mattisse has made valuable contributions to 2010 Haiti earthquake
• She has worked well and collaboratively, discussing edits on the talkpage, on a high profile article where people are sometimes undecided as how to best proceed
• It would be unusual on such an article for stress not to show, and people to sometimes lose their cool and say inappropriate things they later regret
• Matisse lost her cool and made an inappropriate statement
• Geometry guy noticed the comment and advised her to strike it
• Mattisse struck the comment, and then struck all her comments and engaged Geometry guy in a discussion about her editing, and how low she feels
• Geometry guy banned her from 2010 Haiti earthquake and related talkpage for 36 hours as Mattisse, from past experience, may escalate matters there when feeling low
• Mattisse asked for an explanation as to why she is banned from the article

I feel that Geometry guy's actions are self-explanatory. I support what Geometry guy has done, and while I understand and sympathise with Mattisse's frustration - as we are all capable of getting over-involved in an article - I feel she knows that her original comment was inappropriate, and that her later actions and comments were over-reaction, and that this is the danger zone for her. When angry and frustrated like this, the most appropriate solution is to log off and cool down. Easier said than done - but it has to be done. As the solution is to cool off, I will not engage in further discussion on this matter either here or off-line until next month. SilkTork *^YES! 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment [14] It gives me solace. I wish you had not removed it, as I think it sheds the clearest light. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I suspect G guy is busy trying to fix the issues on the Alert page, the link you requested is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I had removed my request from G guy's page, so your post on my page is unnecessary. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Some reply. I have ceased following the article and sources, and since it would take a lot of work to update myself, I am willing to avoid editing the article. The "lead editor" has a view with which I disagree, so it is better to let that view prevail. Thus I wish to strike all my comments. I am deeply regretful that I ever contributed to the article and wish I could remove my contributions as well, but of course I know I cannot. As far as not seeing your comments, I have a severe eyesight problem and when comments are not well formated for reading, I have difficulty. Thus, you ban notice is still hard for me to find. Regarding "wow", I have seen that used many times effectively by other editors and so I copied it. It is a common device on Wikipedia. Please point out any questions that I have not answered. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't answered all the questions, but that's okay: they were meant to encourage reflection, and this seems to have been of some benefit. Also, as an indefinite ban from the article and its talk page has been agreed (I will record this shortly), the main issues are moot. "Indefinite" here does not mean "permanent": it may be lifted by any advisor/mentor in the future, either in response to a request from you, or following discussion on the monitoring page.

• <IMPORTANT> In response to your comments, I would encourage you to read your plan again. In particular, accusations of article ownership are personalizations of disagreements, contrary to your plan. You have pledged there to focus your contributions on article content and the betterment of the encyclopedia. Your comment about a lead editor having a view which you should let prevail is contrary to this spirit, and wishing to withdraw comments and contributions in protest or frustration is inappropriate behaviour. Good conduct aims for collaboration, mutual understanding, and disengagement from disputes; it does not include posts of a rhetorical nature which aim to be "effective" at seeking attention or winning an argument.

I have a great deal of sympathy for your poor eyesight. If you could explain when you find posts hard to read, that would be helpful to your advisors. There is browser technology available (large print, screen readers and the like) to help you contribute. Members of WP:WPACCESS may be able to provide further advice. The bottom line here, though, is that you should not be writing in response to discussions which you have not been able to read. Geometry guy 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you bolded starred, made big, or in some other way made the "ban" comment stand out. As it is, I have difficulty even now finding it. I use "find" in my browser now that I know the operative word is "banning". Before I searched for "banned" and could not find it. If I dared, I would refactor it so I can find it easily. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse, excuse for butting in, but there's a simply technique that often mitigation visual difficulties without technologies - hold the CTRL key and press the + keys 1-3 times; and if you go too far, use hold the CTRL key and press the - key to reduce the size. It changes the displayed size of both text and pictures, and I know this works for Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera. --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I already do use that technique. It is a formating issue. The info is buried in a series of one line replies. When text is not formatted so important stuff is emphasized it is a forest and tress problem. Plus, the whole thread is confusing and doesn't make sense to me. Apparently, one is not really allowed to strike comments on an article talk but only as a courtesy. I don't understand what is being said. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have highlighted above a paragraph that is particularly important. It is better to try to understand this than whether there are rules for striking comments, and what they might be. One of the foundational principles of Wikipedia is Pillar Five and WP:IAR: rules are simply a tool to help editors improve the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Ivar Hippe

Replied to your comment. --TIAYN (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

T:TDYK - Storm financial

Thanks for your point - i've suggested an alt text. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gunilla Bergström

Replied. Theleftorium 14:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook=

Thanks for the ping. I haven't been on-wiki much the past few days. I've responded here. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Failing verification

Mattisse, thank you very much for finding a bad reference in Music of Minnesota. Two, however, of your taggings are wrong. Please take it easy. Why the sudden interest in this article? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the tagging was wrong. The information was not in the sources given. Has anyone gone through that article and checked the sources? I did not tag every mistake I saw. I am rather surprised at the low quality of sourcing in the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The information was in the sources given both times. Pardon me while I remove myself from the wiki for the afternoon. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the two mistakes and I am glad that you removed the faulty source. As I said, I did not mark all the questionable sources; I merely did a spot check. I question whether there has been a good source check of the article. Even if one out of three is wrong, and I am sorry for that, the number is still too high. Help with source checking should be welcomed. I usually do not make mistakes so I apologize for that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI. No response necessary. Best wishes (as always). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I was not aware that things were so tense at the FAR for that article. I looked at the review page for that article and I see that it is very tense. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  Mattisse, you may want to place a talkback on SusanLesch's page (or, better still, copy and paste your apology above onto her talkpage. That way, you'll be sure it's been seen. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Done![15] Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That was quick - thanks! (Also, FYI, I refactored the monitoring page entries because we need to use a certain format. Our brief discussion there has moved to the talk page.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany peer review

Hi Mattisse, this article which you reviewed for GA last year is currently at peer review. It was promoted to GA last November, and I'd like to see if it might be worth nominating for FA at some point. If you feel you would like to contribute to the peer review, I'd be very grateful for your feedback. On the other hand, I haven't forgotten that you swore to avoid the topic in future, and if you still feel that way about it, then please follow your feelings! Best, --JN466 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't normally copy edit or review articles for FA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

April Fool's TFA

Mattisse, there is a new alert about your remarks on choices for the featured article on 1st April at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#April_Fool.27s_TFA_discussion. I must admit that I'm puzzled as to why you chose to frame your remarks in the way you did. If your broader point is that the article may not be well received by the general public (because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny) then why would you enter the discussion with this remark, directed as it is at an editor with whom you have had issues in the past. Reasonable people may agree with your later arguments if you make them reasonably but allegations that editors who frequent the FA page only care for their own 'chuckles' is both hardly likely to get your views heard and is, as well, extremely impolite. My suggestion is that you strike your entire set of remarks on that talk page and then, either make your point in a reasonable way, or withdraw yourself from the discussion. I have a further question to ask of you but will wait till this settles before asking it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to strike my remarks but perhaps you could suggest a "reasonable" way to make my points. I find the suggestion of that article as an April Fool's joke objectionable because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny. How do you think I should word it? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How about "I don't like the idea of featuring this article because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny". (I'm using your words.) You don't have to strike your words, not much point in that. Perhaps a statement such as "I'm sorry that my posts above were not expressed in the right spirit of cooperation but I do think that, since wife selling exists in other parts of the world, it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny." Something like that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. Now please don't react to anything and keep your head down. You've expressed your view on the topic, let others express theirs. Now for my question. Are you deliberately trying to get in trouble? I can't imagine you consider your initial remark anything but aggressive and the remark about 'chuckles' anything but impolite. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And, BTW, just to be on the safe side, I'm going to ban you from the WT:FAC page for 48 hours. Sorry, but gotta be done because you have the tendency to go off! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I had no intention of posting there more on this subject anyway. I was just a little shocked that not only was Wife selling suggested as an April Fools joke, but also Traumatic insemination. Thank you for your fine help. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Different people find different things funny. Generally, if you find something shocking, or it makes you angry, follow Philcha's excellent advice and go read a book for a couple of hours. -RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent

The recent incident appears to be another example of article ownership. It seems that if an opinion is given on whether or not one thinks an article is appropriate for TFA, the article's editor takes personal umbrage: bugger all to do with a "spirit of cooperation" ?? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark has given you excellent advice and support in this matter. I have nothing to add at the moment. Geometry guy 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark did not opine on the above comment, as that comment was made in response to the wording I added at the suggestion of RegentsPark. OK. I will ask him. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You just can't let things go, can you; now you're accusing me of article ownership. Your opening remarks "It would be a way of beefing up it's low page view statistics and maybe even get it linked to other articles at Wikipedia so that it contributes to the general encyclopedia" were quite clearly intended to be inflammatory. Nothing to do with the appropriateness or otherwise of the article at TFA, which I note no other editor has objected to. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about you and did not know it was your article. Please do not take comments made about articles personally. It makes it seem like you own the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You still don't get it. It's not "my article". I would have responded in the same way whichever article you'd adopted the same beligerent and insulting stance against, no matter who you believed the owner to be. As it happens I'd support Scratching Fanny for the 1 April TFA, and I had very little to do with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, I saw the comment earlier. That's what I mean by "don't react to anything and keep your head down". I expected that you'll get some flak after your last post (that's why I banned you from that talk page) and suggest you ignore that flak completely. Even on your own talk page. Starting now. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Yes. I see what you mean. OK. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady GaGa

This will date me, but I'd never heard of the lady before I got involved with Alejandro! :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I never had either, until I came across Lady Gaga in the GAN nominations . But I have learned that events move fast. The world is changing. There is a new generation, and they will be important to Wikipedia! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To bring you up to speed: [16] ;) JN466 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I watched the Grammies and saw her last night. She is quite refreshing. (Do you know why for some reason the flash player reloads every few seconds, making it impossible to watch it without interruption? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. We are listening to it quite a lot at home. :) The problem you have is probably due to the player buffering; if you have a slow connection, the transmission can't keep up with the real-time song. If that is the problem, then the trick is simply to click on Pause and wait until most of the song is downloaded (watch the little red bar grow from left to right), and then to click Play when the red bar is complete. --JN466 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly I have a very fast connection. I guess I will have to make a telephone call and inquire what is going on. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the problem on all youtube videos or just on some? --JN466 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More so on that one. Although I tried a few familiar ones, and there was a slight buffering problem. I am on the phone to technical support at the moment! Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, that song is fine here, but we do sometimes get the problem on other videos as well, to an equally annoying degree. I reckon that the transmission is only ever as fast as the slowest link in the chain. The slowest link may be a link somewhere down the line, on the other side of the globe, rather than your or my broadband connection. That would explain why some videos are fine to play in real time, and others first need to be buffered before they will play right. Good luck with the Tech Support guys, if they have any great wisdom to share, do pass it on! --JN466 01:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, technical support, Frances in Manila, proved to me that my download speed of 26,300 was normal. Frances tried to help me clear my cache and other such things with this Windows 7. Nothing seems to help Lady Gaga so I let Frances off the hook and said I would work it out myself. Hope this isn't going to plague me. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Technical support is always fun. :) When I have the buffering problem, I press Pause, spend 5 minutes doing something else, and when I come back to it afterwards, my browser has downloaded the video and plays it fine. I don't think this is a problem that can be solved, you can only work around it. The difference between you and me may just be your geographical location relative to the computer that actually hosts that specific video. --JN466 03:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You were right. Today it works fine! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good! :) --JN466 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Hi Mattisse. The first four "not in citation" tags you added here today on the Alzheimer's disease article in the pharmacueticals section do not appear to be correct. Each drug appears in the citation given and if you go to each drug and click on "brand name" it gives you the brand names as cited. (The fifth one, Memantine, does now only cite one of the brand names.) Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the footnote should give those instructions. However, I will remove those four. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I mentioned it to Garrondo too in case I was missing something and also becase he may know what's going on with the fifth brand name. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Could not the links be fixed to go to the correct link for a given drug? The link checker calls them dead links, and since they have different urls, I presume they originally went to the correct pages. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worth a try.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who designed or maintains the link checker; checking the articlehistory should reveal that. Glad this is partially settled! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the urls. They seem to work. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed is better. That made the link checker tool happy. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Dennis

Hi Mattisse, thanks for looking over this. It does need quite a bit of work, and I've been considering sending it to FAR for a while. What do you think? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly it is a problem with the sources. And perhaps some tightening up of the language. It doesn't look hopeless. Couldn't it be fixed up? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook

Replied there, thanks.  fetchcomms☛ 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Corry

Thank you very much for working with me on Stephen Corry's DYK section. I have put forward two alternatives that respect the length limit. I think the first ALT works better as a hook by providing the information that he is an indigenous rights advocate. I hope everything is ok now. If there is anything else missing, please let me know. Again, thank you for your time. Maziotis (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Mary Anning?

I have been working mostly by myself on the article and I think it could use a fresh pair of eyes. I remember all you did to improve history of evolutionary thought and On the Origin of Species and I thought you might be able to help with Mary Anning also if you found it interesting. I am hoping to nominate it for GA soon. I know you are always busy with lots of different things on Wikipedia, but if you do have the time to take a quick look I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I do find the article interesting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, your writing clearly flows better than mine. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook

Replied there, thanks.  fetchcomms☛ 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Graham87

Hi Mattisse. Graham87 agreed to be interviewed. Would you like to co-write an article with me (it would go in the Special Story section of SignPost). I'd be honored if you agreed to do so. Regards. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will co-write with you. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! If I may suggest a modus-operandi, perhaps we could alternate questions and build an interview that way. Then, once we're done with the questions, we could write up the front end, think of a nice title - I thought of The Blind EditMaker but that may be too obvious :) - and go from there. I've set up a page here and, if this is fine with you, we can ask Graham87 to start responding. The good news - we've got plenty of time!. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I have been blocked. So I will not be contributing to the Signpost interview. Hope I am not letting you down but I cannot enjoy editing in the existing atmosphere. As you know, my last contributions were to 2010 Haitian earthquake which were nipped in the bud. As a result of that and the current block, I have lost interest in writing for Wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you change your mind. You know, one of the ways to get out of the catch-22 kind of mess you are in now, is to try to do something different. I understand your frustration and can see that the constant reference to your advisors is hardly designed to keep you in a happy place, but engaging in new areas with new people is one way of moving on. (Personally, I don't understand this fascination with FAC, or is it FA? IMO, the encyclopedia works better when many people do little things rather than when a few people do big things. Why not move around a bit and see this as an opportunity rather than as a road block?) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't. I was having enough trouble being motivated. The 2010 Haitian earthquake ban was a blow because that was the first time I had felt motivated to contribute substantially to an article for a long time. And I haven't since. It has become a grind. I was very interested in the Graham87 interview, but I just don't feel I am up to it now. Best not to count on me as I doubt I will be doing much in the future. Being interested and involved and contributing just brings punishment. Wikipedia wants robot editors apparently, without feelings or opinions. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The interview will be worthwhile, but it is your choice. What I don't understand is why you get so het up about things. FAC is handing out stars to too many editors (if I understood you right) - so what? An editor is leaving but not leaving - why do you care? As Alice says toward the end of her adventure in wonderland (and there are strong parallels between wikiworld and wonderland!) Who cares for you. You're nothing but a pack of cards! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I have no business having opinions and expressing them. I have no business interacting with the community. Just read Moni3's analysis and mind reading of my motivations for your answer. I have no business speaking for myself.
I get upset about things because I get blocked without warning contrary to My Plan. My mentors/advisers do not consult with each other before punishing me, contrary to My Plan, others are allowed to insult me and treat me with disrespect, but if I word something unwisely, one of the two editors who make it their business to monitor everything I do can go running to my mentors/advisers and I get punished for things that other to regularly with no repercussions. I have no interest in doing hard work in a situation where I only receive harassment and punishment. That is why I no longer write articles or do reviews, or copy edit for others. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Corry

Thank you very much for working with me on Stephen Corry's DYK section. I have put forward two alternatives that respect the length limit. I think the first ALT works better as a hook by providing the information that he is an indigenous rights advocate. I hope everything is ok now. If there is anything else missing, please let me know. Again, thank you for your time. Maziotis (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another request for you

Hey mattisse, long time no see! Would you be interested in reading July 2009 Ürümqi riots to do a quick-and-dirty check for NPOV, and letting me know if anything about it seems POV to you? The article was recently at FAC and was pretty much derailed by the [misplaced, in my opinion] POV concerns of one editor. I've nominated it for a peer review, here, so if you like you can leave comments there, or just read it informally.

But if you're too busy right now, I totally understand, so don't feel like you're under any obligation to look at this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like to get mixed up with an article that is going to FAC at this point. I wouldn't want to follow it through the process there, so it is best I turn down your request. Pity, as I have really liked and supported your previous articles through FAC. But I have not been copy editing articles for FAC for quite a while and don't see that changing in the immediate future. Makes for a happier wiki life. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. That's totally understandable, given there appears to be some bad blood there. Anyway, I hope all is well! Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I regard you articles highly, and may be willing to help in the future. You create unieque articles on subject matter that is not common on Wikipedia. Not the same old stuff. I really value that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Request to consult advisors

I have asked five times at WT:WIAFA that you stop making implications about FAC editors and stay on topic (Public domain text). Please consult your advisors.[17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I merely quoted a suggestion from above from Mike Christie. Perhaps you should allow me to have a say. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say things that don't make implications about FAC or FAC reviewers or editors participating in a discussion, they are very welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those removals (the discussion is complex enough on its own :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matisse

Thx for ticking Lowes Dickinson. Your comment about the image map was ambiguous (to me). Did you mean that you couldnt work out what it was? If so then run a cursor over the picture.... If you mean you think the image map is a confusion for the main page then I can change it to a jpg. Oh and hello again Victuallers (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I meant that I could not click on the image map when it was a thumbnail (which it would be on the main page) to make it bigger, so I never could apply the cursor unless I was already in the article. Also, is it an image that can be freely used? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh OK, it is tricky to see the image so small - its only a gimmick at that size and yes wikipedia (and me) consider it is a free image. The National Portrait Gallery are threatening court action but wikipedia are resolute. If any admin had an issue then I'm sure another could be found. Victuallers (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Imzadi1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

replied on talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Imzadi1979's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

replied on talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom

I am not sure is the article Franz Anton Knittel is long enough for the DYK nom. The article is based on this source (1830). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on dyk character count, it has 2219 characters. So it is long enough. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did not find it on this page "User:AlexNewArtBot/GoodSearchResult (links)", that's why I was asking. Thanks for your time. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found that bot to be unreliable in picking up articles. So I would not depend on it if I were you. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Mattisse, is it necessary for you to post on Malleus's talk page? It sure looks like you're doing the worst kind of poking and baiting. If I'm off-base I apologize, but it seems to me that you are also a good editor who gets frustrated with some of the disputes that go on here, so I'm suprise that you would be engaged in making comments that aren't constructive when someone is fed up. Again, if I'm misunderstanding I apologize. I'm tired. And I'm off. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it seems that way to you, I will stop. I am tired of the repeated retirements, but that is my problem. It saps the community energy and I don't condone his repeated attacks on certain editors on the basis of their age. Do you agree that editors should be attacked on the basis of age? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. It often makes me feel better to attack other editors for any number of reasons. But seriously, I'm sorry if you were attacked. I haven't followed all the disputes except catching a bit of the action on ANI so I'm not really up to speed on what it's all about. Frankly, I didn't even realize you were involved.

As far as age is concerned, JulianColton is a lot more mature than I am, and he's a heck of a lot younger, so go figure.

Hopefully collegiality will make a comeback here in the near future. I think it's very weird that so many good content contributors don't get along well because it's the incompetent admins and the trolls that really drive me up the wall. But c'est la vie. Maybe we need courses in conflict resolution. As a New Yawker I'm pretty used to being yelled at and I tend not to take it personally. It's the subtle dickishness and chickenshit game playing that gets my goat.

But anyway, I appreciate your taking my comment in the good faith with which it was offered. I'm a big believer in karma. So sow kindness whenever you can even amongst those you don't like. And do as I say not as I do! That last one's most important. Take it easy Mattisse. And let me know if you want my "help" on anything. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. And thanks for your offer. It is greatly appreciated. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have just read Malleus's talk page. The good point to consider here is that you disengaged after ChildofMidnight pointed out that you were out of order. The disturbing point is that even at this stage you had to be told to disengage, and that you got involved in the first place. Getting involved in a squabble because somebody disagrees with your editing on an article is one thing. Reacting to comments about you is one thing. But deliberately posting provocative comments on somebody's talkpage is quite another - especially after you have been repeatedly warned not to do this. We can't let this incident go Mattisse. We can't simply shake our head after the event and say that you were naughty, but how good you were to disengage when asked - because the damage has already been done. I have given you a warning about this - and that warning was directly in relation to the same person. In line with that warning, and the agreed procedure in your Plan I am now blocking you for 24 hours and will consult with the others as to how we are to proceed. SilkTork *^YES! 09:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, a large part of the problem is that you treat me like a "naughty" child. If you treated me like an adult, I think my response would be better. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, I've often thought that you go through cycles, with longer good periods and then burst of trouble. I thought it was about 15 days between burst of trouble, and planned to suggest that you avoid comment pages of any types from 5 days starting about 12 days after the beginning of the last burst of trouble. This incident is only 9 days since User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_26#April_Fool.27s_TFA, where you were also blocked, and makes it impossible to predict trouble. I think you need to go through all your incidents, including those that did not lead to blocks, and analyse objectively how and why you go into trouble - it seems you are the only person who may have any chance of predict trouble and hence averting it. --Philcha (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Philcha is mistaken. I was not blocked nine days ago. That is incorrect information. I was banned from contributing to one article 2010 Haitian earthquake even though I was a substantial contributor to it and there was nothing wrong with any of my contributions to it. I was banned from contributing to that article for reasons not related to my editing of the article. In fact, my edits were very good and remain in the article today. That was an unfortunate decision as it has stopped me from contributing to anything. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not think there is a need for me to go through all my incidents, as Moni3 has read my mind and analyzed my motivations and behavior[18] and knows better than I do when and why I do what I do. I defer to her analysis. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, your actions around 1 Feb 2010 were complex: you were banned from 2010 Haitian earthquake and RegentsPark did some skilful diplomacy to get you out of trouble in the April Fool TFA. So we're looking at 2 incidents rather 1 in earlier that the 15-day cycle I thought I've seen. So now only you can predict and avert trouble. I'm sure you can work out the rest. I suggest you discuss at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring. --Philcha (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to Mattisse's being blocked for something that was already resolved. Punitive enforcements do not promote civility. Polite discussion and mutual respect do. I'm sure Mattisse would have been willing to apologize and refactor his comments if someone had asked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|This block is unnecessarily humiliating and demeaning. I was blocked punitively without proper warning, contrary to my mentoring plan. (The warning was three months ago, and not recent so it is not relevant to this block.) Blocks for punitive purposes are contrary to Wikipedia policies. I had already ceased the behavior in question, as shown by posts on my talk page. The talkpage remarks I was blocked for were no different from many others on that talk page. I was not asked to refactor or remove my remarks, or given any chance. I did not violate any policy or guideline. My mentoring plan states that all blocks should be proceeded by warnings and that blocks should only be used as a last resort. This was not the procedure followed here. This block is unnecessarily demeaning and does not prevent anything. It only evokes ill will.}}

• It would help greatly if Malleus were banned from posting on my talk page, as he does so in an unnecessarily intrusive, unpleasant and arrogant way. I apologize if I feel free to post on his talk page as a consequence. It would stop the vicious circle if he were prevented from interjecting his opinion on my talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Your posts on Malleus's talk page were not in response to any post he's left on your talk page. His last posting here was 10 days ago [19], and it was in direct response to replies you had made at WT:FAC to him and about an article he had worked on. Please don't rewrite history. I want to see you succeed Mattisse, and I hope you can look more to your own behavior rather than try to use that of others as an excuse. Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I found that post extraordinarily offensive. You still don't get it. It's not "my article". I would have responded in the same way whichever article you'd adopted the same beligerent and insulting stance against, no matter who you believed the owner to be. As it happens I'd support Scratching Fanny for the 1 April TFA, and I had very little to do with that This was because I found Wife selling offensive as an April Fools joke on the main page. I did not know it was Malleus' article at the time I gave my opinion. Because I expressed my sincere opinion on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests talkpage I was subjected to abuse on my talkpage. That was unnecessary and abusive. There was no reason to bring to my talkpage except to intimidate me. The decision to use Wife selling as an April Fools mainpage article was not going to be made on my talkpage. Yes, it is true I try to get over the intimidation and fear I feel about Malleus by posting on his talkpage. But nothing I say is intimidating. He makes it more than clear that he can push me around. So posting on his talkpage is an act of bravado for me. I try to get over my fears of Wikipedia and dominating editors. It is not possible to edit while always being fearful. I never respond to his posts on my talkpage and they are always intrusive and intimidating. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • (ec) When I brought your April Fool's-related posts to your mentor's attention I made it clear that the problem I had was with the way you chose to make your point - not your point itself. This is a longstanding problem that I've seen in your posts. You use passive-aggressive and/or negative language, attempt to deflect questions about your points (or your behavior) by disparaging others/misrepresenting or understanding others/redirecting the conversation, and, while you continually decry behaviors by others, you then follow those examples you profess to dislike. In this particular reply, you've deflected the conversation (rather than focus on the points I made, you bring up unrelated ones), disparaged another editor (Malleus), and used passive-aggressive terminology ("It is not possible to edit while always being fearful"), and you've proven your previous post false - now you say it is not Malleus posting on your talk page that is the problem, it is that you wanted to prove yourself brave.
      • Behaviors like this reduce your credibility and mean your message is often totally ignored - at times because those of us reading can't figure out whether you are trying to make an actual point or are just furthering a grudge. On the monitoring page Moni3 suggested that you need to make better use of your mentors. I recommend that you consult them before making any talk page comment for a while, and they can help you figure out how best to word your post so that your true intention is clear and your messages aren't lost (and to help you determine which posts are appropriate and which are not). Your mentors are sound editors, and they can help you, but only if you let them, and so far it doesn't seem as if you are doing so. Karanacs (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Actually, I do not think you, SandyGeorgia, Moni3, and Malleus speak for the whole of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is losing editors because certain attitudes prevail, messages aren't heard, and that is Wikipedia's loss. There is no attempt to understand messages, and every attempt to misperceive and misinterpret, as in the case of the Wife selling incident. I was not the one that personalized that incident. I did not know whose article that was when I gave my opinion. So I will successfully be driven away from commenting on TFA by aggressive posts to my talkpage. I have successfully been driven away from reviewing FACs and GANs, yes that is true. I have not done reviews for a year now. And you can make life significantly unpleasant for me. I don't think that because I commented a few times on the FAC page, that is a reason for you all to gather like vultures at my funeral. Surely you have something else to do. I cannot believe that I am that much of a threat that it is worth all this attention from important FAC people. Isn't there something else to draw your attention on Wikipedia? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Mattisse's obsession with me is vexatious and unhealthy, and it must stop.[20] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• I feel really sorry for the young editors that you push around and insult because of their age. I feel your crusade against young editors is harmful to Wikipedia. I know that your behavior toward me has embittered me toward Wikipedia. I would hate to see that happen to the young people coming here. I am intimidated and frightened by you, so I feel for others who get insulted and demeaned by you and your assaults on specific editors. I guess I am one of them. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, editors who are given a hard time often harden and do the same thing to other editors they come across. I'm sorry that your experiences here haven't been more pleasant Mattisse. You seem like a very thoughtful and decent fellow. I feel the same you do to some extent. There's a lot of threatening, intimidating, and aggressive behavior that goes on here. On the other hand, it is very cool that we have the opportunity to collaborate in writing up a pageless encyclopedia. In "my day" the set of books on the shelf was something pretty cool and sacred. So it's pretty amazing to be able to help construct one on the internet that's even more comprehensive (as well as constantly evolving and unorthodox). The way this community functions is also pretty fascinating. I see it as a massive social experiment and experience that shouldn't be taken too seriously. ;) There are bullies and blocks that are wrong and messed up characters just like in the real world. But at least we can turn it all off at the end of the day. :) I do think the abuses that go on here are damaging and worth confronting and trying to correct, but these issues aren't something that any one editor can manage themselves. So patience is required. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to get your head on straight Mattisse, but you're talking absolute nonsense. It is perfectly true that I have expressed my opinion on many occasions that minors should not be wikipedia administrators, a point of view that I don't really that any reasonable person could object to even if they didn't share it. That is the extent of my "pushing around" and "insulting" so far as young editors are concerned, and no amount of your lies will change that simple reality. Now get off my case and sort yourself out. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop posting on my talkpage, Malleus. You are not an editor I admire or respect. Your advice is not credible to me. It is unwanted, so please do not post here again. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop posting on your talk page when you stop posting about me on your talk page. Now get real. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You are very intimidating and I suppose you can push me around. You do so successfully. My pitiful comments on your page are nothing compared to the aggression, obscenity and intimidation of yours. I am helpless to defend myself against your attacks. I can be prevented and blocked for posting on your talkpage, but I have to receive your ugliness and unpleasantness on mine. You are a significantly negative experience for me on Wikipedia. My life here has been degradation by contact with you. I request that you not post on my talkpage any more. I will never post on yours again. I am sorry that you feel you must intrude on my life and comment as you did in the link provided by Karanacs. It is ugly. Very ugly. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, your personal attacks against Malleus are unacceptable - and unprovoked. Please desist immediately. Karanacs (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in the above comment. This abusive block (without warning and made punitively) has encouraged more disruption and disgruntlement. I hope that Silkstork and the other admins involved will exercise better judgment in the future. I would give them civility warnings, but I'd like to see this whole thing die down now. There seems a chance we can get back to improving the content of a free encyclopedia with some guise of collegiality.

Malleus has been asked not to post here and Mattisse has been asked not to discuss Malleus. Both those requests should be honored. It's a shame that Mattisse is blocked in this unfortunate manner as it only goes to show that no good deed goes unpunished. He was receptive to disengaging from the dispute when he was asked. And yet the bully boy admins rolled in anyway, well after the situation was resolved, because they just had to teach him a lesson. The lesson is learned. If you have the tools and the right friends you can act as a bully. It's a law of the jungle here, soemthing I suspect Mattisse and Malleus can agree on, if not much else. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. I think your unblock request is more likely to be successful if you remove the statement that: "The behavior was not uncivil or a personal attack". It was uncivil, as was explained in the discussion above. That you've been treated unkindly by others doesn't make it okay to do the same in return.

Apart from that I agree with you and am sorry to see you blocked. I don't see how it's helpful or appropriate, but oh well. Maybe it's best to reflect on it all and do other things for a while. Maybe some day this community will promote a more virtuous cycle of interactions, rather than this one based on threats and punishments. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit tool

Thanks, Mattisse, I don't think I've seen that particular tool before. It looks useful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 05:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

According to SandyGeorgia[21], both tools are in the Featured article toolbox. I only see one though. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

My Plan

The terms of My Plan have been violated.

--Situations in which I tended to become stressed (per Ling.Nut's request)--

1. Being blocked without warning

• Therefore, my mentor intentionally put me in a position knowing that I would become more stressed, as being blocked without a warning was one of those situations I specifically listed as adversive. I believe that, in general, it is not the practice on Wikipedia to block without warning.

--Consequences for failure to adhere to plan-- Punishments:

1. Short blocks after a warning
2. Punishment in the form of blocks of escalating length, after warning.
3. Application to ArbCom to reopen the case

• These measures will be applied by my mentors/advisers in consultation with each other. (Two or more mentors/advisers can decide.)

• There was no warning as specified by the plan. (I do not think a warning three months ago counts for this purpose.)
• The block was unilaterally applied without consultation with other mentors/advisors.

Since the conditions of My Plan are not being adhered to by my mentors/advisors and they are violating the conditions of the Plan, I wish to dissolve it. It is being used abusively and only produces ill will and bad feelings. I no longer have faith in my mentors/advisors. I think I will do better without them. At least I could not be blocked without warning by other admins for my wrongs. Nothing I did warranted a block without a warning.

The current block is precisely the situation I sought to avoid in My Plan. My Plan is being ignored and my mentors/advisers have decided to make up their own rules.

Mattisse

Mattisse, I have raised these points here. Whether or not to continue with the plan is your choice and I'll respect it. It is probably not a bad idea because it does seem like mentorship is not working. For one thing, the threat of 'advisors' is easily applied to any comment you make. And, I must admit that I personally am more interested in heading things off (at the pass, so to speak) even when I'm not convinced that you've done something egregious. That is probably not the right thing to do because it just exacerbates the problem. Still, I'd think about it for a couple of days if I were you because the road back at arb is long and dreary. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to continue the plan if the plan is followed. However, currently it is being used to harass and abuse me. The way it is now a few editors can repeatedly harass me through the plan because they dislike or disagree with my opinion. I am being held to a higher standard than other editors and punished if I err in situations where others are not punished or even warned for the same or worse behavior. I do not believe that was the intention of arbcom, that my behavior must be saintly. They expressed more of a rehabilitative than the punitive approach that has resulted. The plan has not been followed. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I see all the discussion about the Wife swapping article. I did not know that it was Malleus' article when I made the comment. Further, are my comments worth blocks without warnings or discussion. I think rather too much is being made of this issue because the article belonged to Malleus and because he attacked me for commenting. The other article mentioned was Traumatic insemination which also can be seen as rather brutal toward females, and therefore perhaps not appropriate for an April Fools joke. So crucify me for the comments. However, whoever did that article did not come after me for the remark. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only person who has expressed the view that ownership of articles is a problem. Some of the arbs said so in my arbitration. But because that offends some editors at FAC, I am not allowed to state the concern. Is it a blockable offense to bring up this topic? Is it a forbidden topic? Can a few editors at FAC determine that it is abusive to bring up that topic, and the editor that does so should be harassed and punished? That is for you all to decide. (And this is a world where some editors are allow to call others "idiots" and use obscenities freely. And joke about the status of women. I bet if the article were about selling Africans, it would not be considered for an April Fools joke TFA. Or maybe it would if such an article ever made it to FA status. ) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And apparently it is wrong to bring up the concept of page views. It is wrong to suggest that perhaps FA should consider readership to some degree. Wife swapping has few page views.[22] Is it a blockable offense to bring that up? Is it a blockable offense to suggest that FAs not be {{orphan}}s? Now Wife swapping has two links, an improvement. Isn't interlinking a basic goal of the project? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mon3's overinvolvement

• It appears that Moni3 is over involved in my mentoring.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

• However, Moni3 is not a neutral party. She has a history of personal attacks against me e.g.Is your desire to be able to end your posts with winky-faces what compels you to be impotent? Do I have to bring out more effective language and say that Mattisse is full of neurotic bullshit, and scream like a mentally imbalanced 14-year-old? (this because I did not rewrite her article according to her demands - and I have never ended a post with a winky-face) and a refusal to withdraw them when requested by an admin.WP:POT evidently applies, I suggest that you strike these aggressive and WP:CIV|uncivil assertions. A bit more patience and a suitable plea to uninvolved editors is more likely to be succeed than this evidently unproductive name-calling. She used her admin tools inappropriately to lock down a page of mine in a dispute in which she was personally involved. The arbitration committee chose not to reprimand her but they could have done so, and some of the arbs openly expressed concern about her abuse of her tools. (diffs upon request)

• I feel she is and overly involved in me and my situation and too personally involved over time.(diffs provided upon request) She was overly involved in the arbitration and has continued subsequently to be overly involved. (diffs given upon request) This is unhealthy and prevents a neutral solution for me.

• I do not think it is her place to read my mind and analyze my motivations.

• All the alerts so far have been brought up by User:SandyGeorgia or User:Moni3, a small pool of editors considering the volume of edits I do. There was an alert because I made a mistaken edit! It has all been small potatoes that did not require an "alert", in fact, did not require anything. There was no pattern involved. The alerts are having the effect of harassment, that two editors control the alert system, both of them with a personal involvement. (See the arbitration - diffs provided upon request)

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(correction) I see FAC editor User:Karanacs is sharing the load, bring up the Malleus article thing. Strange for a project that dislikes the ownership concept, the complaint is concerned with the objections of Wife selling's owner. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

You remain under conduct probation until advised otherwise. If you do not remove this post commenting negatively on another editor, you will be blocked. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, I agree with geometryguy. Your options are fairly straightforward at this point. If you believe that it is important that your views on moni3 or SandyGeorgia or other editors be aired, and you are entitled to that belief, then you need to take all this back to arbcom because otherwise you're violating your conduct probation (plus, it is wrong to make charges against other editors without giving them the right venue to respond). If you wish to continue with the plan, then this sort of negative commentary must stop. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I have removed my posts. I realize my opinions and feeling are irrelevant. I have no say. I will edit not more. The process has achieved its purpose. I cannot believe that this is what the arbcom meant. But I see that I am powerless. I am gone as desired. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning

This was not a seriously problematic discussion, but all editors involved, including myself, may obtain a more objective perspective by stepping back for a while. Geometry guy 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The tail does not wag the dog. If you continue to dictate to your advisors how they should enforce your conduct probation you will be blocked. Geometry guy 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I will be blocked for quoting my plan? How can that be? I do not understand. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC) You are not only quoting your plan, you are being disruptive and trying to make a point. Disengage. Clearly you are reconsidering abandoning your plan, so take some time to think about it. Please reread my comments on Monitoring talk. If, after some thought, you still disagree with any issue, explain there precisely what you disagree with. Nothing in your plan requires anything of your advisors beyond a willingness to help you, which is rapidly diminishing in my case. Stop testing my patience. I will simply walk away. Geometry guy 23:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you for removing those posts.[29] That is the sort of thing I have to endure repeatedly. This is the first time a mentor/adviser has helped me in this situation. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC) You are welcome. I doubt it is the first time, but anyway, this is your talk page: you can remove posts here yourself, and you have evidently done so on several occasions. If you return to the Plan, you can contact advisors when someone posts on your talk page. You can also remove their comment instead of replying. If you don't deal with a sitation well, advisors may even remove your own posts from your talk page to avoid escalation. I hope you can handle that. Geometry guy 00:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC) I never remove posts. The only time I have is yesterday and today as I tried to retire. But I see retiring is not possible while I am being threatened with blocks. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry to bust into this cozey little party, but the solution to this problem is quite clear. You stop posting lies. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Please stop your aggressive and intimidating posts on my page. You are harassing me. Please do not post on my page again. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, why don't you continue this conversation on the Wikipedia Review discussion forum ( http://www.wikipediareview.com ). Malleus is a member there, Mattisse, and contributors are free to speak their mind there without fear of being blocked for violating AGF, being incivil etc. --JN466 00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No thanks. I have nothing to say at Wikipedia Review and do not wish to join in. I don't even know how to do so. I don't want to become one of those that offer endless opinions there. I don't admire that sort of thing at all. I would rather have no contact with such eitors. To me it is navel gazing. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)