User talk:Mattisse/Archive 18

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_17) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_19)

United States Civil Service Commission

Mattisse:

I'm a novice editor (have been working on fixing typos mostly), and I have decided to expand the stub article you created during my holiday next week. I'd appreciate it if you could keep the page on your watchlist, and advise me if I put a foot in the wrong place while I'm expanding the article and placing citations and references. Thanks! --StaniStani 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create that article, but I am certainly willing to help you out in any way I can. I don't know much about the subject, but I will put the article on my watchlist. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit history was unclear, at least to my eye. I appreciate the help. I've been fiddling with the Wiki code, and it's time for me to contribute in article space. --StaniStani 07:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of the Wiki code are you having trouble with? —Mattisse (Talk) 07:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not having trouble with code, just need more experience in markup and citation work, so decided to work on a live article, and picked a stub with no controversy. I admire the work you've done in main article space. --StaniStani 09:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials

Thanks for your note, and for your help and support. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to offend here :)

When I was more active on Wikipedia, I don't know how many requests I submitted to AIV. It helped me learn more about the blocking system and how the sysops will work when blocking. Realize that a user must receive three warnings in one day for general vandalism. Only rarely when large amounts of text are deleted at once and it appears the user is on a rampage will a sysop block without ample warnings given. Hope this helps for future reference :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The warning are misleading in the rollbacks then. I will not bother anymore. I am nowhere near willing to spend that amount of time as you are suggesting to become sophisticated enough to manage a successful report! I try to protect certain articles but I can see that reporting will be a useless waste of time for me. Thanks for your reply. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A vandal account doesn't have to have been warned three times in one day; persistent vandalism across multiple days is also grounds for a block, as long as the vandal account has been warned sufficiently. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the vandal, User talk:207.28.249.114 had received 6 warnings in December 2008, including 2 final warnings, but my report was turned down for the reasons above, for vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 So, I think all of this is over my head. I'll leave it to others who can figure it out! Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually it is better to have the warnings on consecutive days (6 warnings in 3 days would be plenty of notice); otherwise we run the risk of the IP having changed "owners", and this particular owner not having gotten the warnings before. It's a tricky process; it's okay to keep filing AIV reports and let the admins act on them when they think it is time. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Since I forgot to unwatch the vandal user page, I just notices that he was blocked after all after my report. So, its confusing. I think vandal reporting is not my strong suit. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK

Hey Mattisse, I'm sorry to hear DYK is getting complicated. To be honest, now is an unlucky time to have gotten started again, because for several days that guy has been going around pissing everyone off and just in general making it not an enjoyable place to be; things seem to be winding down, though.

As for nominating articles to DYK, you don't need to use the template if you don't want to; right now it's purely optional, and there are a good number of nominators who have chosen not to use it. If you don't want to use the template, it's pretty simple to just add a new section and then add your nom like normal, something like this:

====[[Example]]====
* ... that this is an '''[[example]]'''?  New article, self nom. ~~~~

As for using the template, you basically just copy-and-paste it in to the top of whichever subsection you want (whichever date subsection, that is) and fill in what blanks you can. I made this a while back, which was intended to be a copy-and-paste example that would show up when you go to the edit window...it hasn't been adopted, but maybe you'll find it helpful (or maybe not):

Then, as for reviewing noms... as far as I know, you don't need to know anything about the template to review the noms. When you click the section edit link for whatever section that nom is in (assuming you have section editing enabled in your preferences), the template will be at the top of the edit window, and the discussion below; the discussion just goes on like a regular discussion at a talk page. Since all the discussion is going on down lower, there's not really any need to edit the stuff in the template, so you probably don't have to worry about messing things up. And all the other stuff about the new bot and everything you can totally ignore; that all goes on after a hook gets chosen and moved into the queue, and if you're not interested in that you can just focus on reviewing noms, checking sources, rewriting hooks, etc. (which is pretty much what I have been focusing on lately), and for that stuff you don't need any technical know-how.

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now...we're still working on trying to make the template more user-friendly, so hopefully things will improve soon. If you ever have any questions about how stuff works, don't hesitate to ask! And I can give you a quick tutorial in my sandbox about how to use the template and stuff, if you'd like (although it's only optional, and if you feel more comfortable just doing stuff by hand, old-school, that's perfectly acceptable too). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I know I just happened to step in at a really bad time. I would like to do the AlT hooks, reference checking etc. as that is the type of thing that is easy for me to do, like copy editing. And for the time being, I am burned out on writing articles. Maybe in a few days, if things die down there, I will give it a try.

I see you have been working on the Neurolinguistics article. The article already seems much improved. (I only knew a little about Transcranial magnetic stimulation as it is effective in some recalcitrant Major depressive disorders). I noticed that you are thinking about doing a "spinout" of the experimental design section. I am very much interested in experimental design in general and have been thinking about trying to write or upgrade some of the articles on statistics and experimental design in a way that is understandable to the lay person. Such articles would be helpful for wikilinking to in scientific articles, as there seems to be a general misunderstanding about the scientific method vs. "truth" on Wikipedia! Thanks again for your response. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think having experimental design articles is a good idea. In this neurolinguistics article, for example, it's hard to know how much to write about because it's sort of straddling the border between linguistics and experimental science...a lot of the stuff is just about brain imaging and stuff like that, which some might argue is more appropriate in a more general article than in this...but, on the other hand, the imaging techniques and experimental designs are geared towards measuring language-related stuff rather than something else, so it has its own linguistic flavor to it (for example, there's all kinds of special experimental design stuff people do to have fMRI studies of language, since the MRI machine makes so much banging, which can really mess with trying to measure auditory processing of language..... plus, a lot of the "subject tasks" written about in the article right now, such as acceptability judgments and probe verification, are mostly just to keep the subject from getting bored and to make sure they're reading/listening attentively, which is probably not as big a deal in some other fields)—so it's not purely about linguistics, and not purely about scientific methodology. Which is why it would be nice to have a series of articles on experimental design in various fields...then we wouldn't have to worry about going into too much or too little detail (ie, the worry of people coming to the neurolinguistics article and thinking "I care about language bla bla bla stuff, not about how the stupid MEG machine works!") and can try to find a better balance between the experimental techniques and the field-specific subject matter. For example, I wouldn't be able to say much about most fields, but I could do a bit in stuff like Experimental design in neurolinguistics and Experimental design in acoustic phonetics...people who know about stuff like physics and biology and medicine and other fields would be able to do "Experimental design in X" articles for that, etc... and in the end, we could put them all in a category! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a philosophical divide about this. In Major depressive disorder FAC, I argued strenuously, and ultimately fairly successfully, that the article should be limited to the diagnostic classification itself and related material. The enormous "history" of depression was pared down, existential ramblings on the nature of alienation were ultimately removed, and the biological basis was enormously beefed up, but this made me the largest contributor to the article, when at the beginning of the FAC, I had 0 contributions!

I have noticed in doing FAC and GA reviews, that some subject areas, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones etc. have developed a bunch of sub articles describing related technical terms, so that when they write an article, rather than having to describe these terms in the article, they can just wikilink. I developed many such little articles for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law and some for the India-related articles. I am thinking of doing something similar for science-related terms, those related to methodology and statistics, so in writing these article wikilinking could explain some of the rationale behind the scientific method and decision-making. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Paraectamol toxicity GA

Hi there, thanks for doing the GA review for Paracetamol toxicity. The changes you made were also really helpful, I appreciate it, Thanks again. Mr Bungle | talk 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An offering

		An olive branch
		Just so you know there are no hard feelings about our disagreements, I offer you this olive branch of peace. If I came across to harshly at any point during any of my (long-winded) disussions, please believe that it is because of a sincere interest in improving articles and keeping them solid. I know that your goals were the same. All the best. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize you are a good writer and do not question your motivations. I know I have higher standards than many GA reviewers. So I thank you for the peace offering and I do not have hard feelings. In fact, today I supported Edgar Allen Poe for the main page on his 200th anniversary. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's agree to disagree. I'm bordering on incivility in continuing my arguments (and, I admit, it's very easy for me to show my frustration). I'll stop adding anything to the review page now, because I'm making myself look like a certain Richard. I think you were really able to kick me in the butt to make some great additions and changes on the article. Now, if you want to make me less frustrated, you'll avoid my number one pet peeve: misspelling Edgar Allan Poe. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I copied it from a Wikipedia search to at least get it to be a blue link! Look, failing a GA is no big deal and in no way interferes with the progress of the article. It will pass in a flash when you list it again. And you already have improved it immensely. Further, I understand getting upset here on Wikipedia. I believe that you will take my comments to heart. (If you perceive these people you are writing are in such a spiritually elevated state that no method of dealing with (what is charitably being referred to as) "misbehavior" is necessary, then what can I say? Social control is a fundamental feature of any society, and any society must have a means of enforcing norms. One book "Brook Farm: Its Members Scholars and ... - Google Book Search". describes Transcendentalists as being all intellect and emotionally bereft. Perhaps that explains the lack of sexual passions and other human emotions that typically cause problems in any society. What do you say. (I have always been suspicious of them, ever since I learned that bit about Thoreau going into town every day!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in defense of Thoreau, don't misconstrue what he was doing for two years, two months, and two days down by that pond. He never said he wanted to live off of nature alone (i.e. hunting/gathering), but that he wanted to build his connection with nature. Poor guy gets a bad rap! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Going into town every morning defeats the purpose, however he got his supplies. I think he could regularly do without human company for more than one day—necessary to build a spiritual connection with nature, if he were serious. My idea of building a spiritual connection with nature is to backpack into the Sierras or the Everglades and go for some days or weeks without seeing people. So it is not a bad rap from those of us who are not afraid of nature! A hopeless elite! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't see any problem here (and by the way, it wasn't "every day" but more like once a week). His real goal was to "simplify, simplify" and to "live deliberately". Have you seen his recreated cabin? He was certainly "roughing it" so I give him his props! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just giving you a hard time! I thank you for introducing me to Brook Farm as I had never heard of it before and found it quite interesting. I may even write a (somewhat) related article. (Maybe Thoreau should see my "cabin", as at least his was on land!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Orphanage review

Thanks for helping! Feel free to edit as much as you want! I'm not the best writer in the world. I'll try to expand and fix the areas you asked about. I have one quick question, what did you mean by the "technical aspects of the film"? Also, the only thing about the genre choice isn't so much an effect on the film as that it's why they decided to write the film, so it's just part of the screenwriting history of it. Could you re-phrase these problems? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it that closely yet. Perhaps what I mean is the genre issues. I know that you like horror films and with Eyes Without a Face, you added much interesting detail about the horror elements and clarified some issues with very good information. (I can't remember specifically. I will have to look, but I will let you know.) Do you remember the changes you made to Eyes Without a Face? They were very good and greatly added to the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember specific changes. They were sort of there before the review started. I've dug up all the interviews and items on The Orphanage as I can for now. (it's hard to find interviews for a director who doesn't speak much english. :)). So I've got what I can. I've fixed all the other problems too I believe. Care to re-read when you have the chance? Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help again to bringing the article to a GA class! More coming eventually! Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a pleasure when an article is both interesting and well done. I look forward to your future articles! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny

Well I thought I would tell you that Lockdown's FAC has been restarted. I'm informing everyone who said anything in it before the restart.--WillC 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. I thought you were at the end of your tether already! I suggest, from deep down in my heart, that you take the advice that editors suggest on the FAC, regardless of whether you agree. Pare down the background section and spin off the rest. Put it in your userspace until you determine what to do with it. You can't get anywhere resisting the suggestions given there. (This advice is meant to be of help and not to criticize you.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It is just, I don't understand what the problem is. Would you leave out a cast member from a movie because they didn't do much but where a key member of the movie? No. I just don't get it. The match happened at the event. It got three months of build. All the matches at the event besides two got more than four weeks of build, which is usually the main event's build up. The main event got build on two major things for near two to three months. All I hear from people is: well the article should not be long because it will turn away readers from wanting to read it. Though no one ever thinks: maybe they want to know about all the matches and not three. I have that argument with alot of people from the wrestling project, though they don't watch TNA and think it is like WWE. Sorry to rant. Near 8 months or built up quietness is starting to come out because that is how long I've had to hold it in with people saying it is too long. May to now, I'm going insane. Well, thanks for the advice, I'll take it into consideration. I'm about to just re-write the background. I've been thinking about it for a while now, and maybe I can find a better way to explain things after I read all the Impact reviews leading to the event. Not sure if I'll do it though, but now seems like a good time to do it.--WillC 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to do what they say. It is not particularly rational, it is just the way the game is played at FAC. It is very rigid and the outcome determined by a few. If you want to do it your way, then don't go to FAC. At FAC, they determine the rules, however meaningless. It is sort of like if you applied to be a deputy sheriff, you can't say you smoke marijuana, whether you do or not, if you expect to get the job. FAC is all about getting along with them. It is not a place to stand on principle or "truth". You have done remarkably well there, to even reach the point of a "Restart" instead of being tossed aside, like most. So, it is your decision to go through all that again. But if you do decide to, there is little point in doing it the same way as before, or you will get the same result. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to do as they say but I hope people will see my point. If not, then I guess I'll have to put my pride aside and do as I've done before; remove stuff I believe is needed.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Don't look at it as a matter of pride. It has nothing to do with that. It is how you play the game. Just like football, or whatever. A move that is made out of pride will not win the game. (Well, maybe in wrestling it will!) —Mattisse (Talk) 06:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Well nice talking to you.--WillC 06:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way, at some time in the future you will be the "father" of TNA at Wikipedia. But to get there requires one step at a time. Personally, I think it is huge that you have gotten as far as you have at FAC. You can be very proud of that. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "father". That is too ownish. I accredit myself more as the delegate or something along those lines since I'm the only one who expands TNA stuff. Lockdown is more a stepping stone. I plan to make a FA Topic with all of TNA's 2008 events. Lockdown is just to know what an FA is. From there I'll work onward. Thanks for the compliment though.--WillC 07:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it doesn't matter anyway. It was over already. I await to see your vote.--WillC 03:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see: Requested move. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:FA congrats!

Thank you for the kind words. I know it is in part to your copy editing and support. Thanks for the help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Re: Live Prayer

Yes, I plan to stick around. I've been editing for quite a while without registering an account. --Chimro (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. I find the article interesting and will add some comments to the review page. It will be at Talk:Live Prayer/GA1. I will add comments in a bit. In general, the article looks pretty good. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mattisse, I am seeing the talk page at the Kannada literature article now. I shall attempt to fact-check as part of copyedit. I normally understand copyedit work to include more or less fact-checking in any case. Although you haven't mentioned it, disputes grieve me, and it's my instinct to seek to disintensify such things when I see this intruding between other editors. I won't commit to any DR role, since processes appear to have been initiated in that regard; however, informally and incidently, I'll be scrupulously neutral, eirenic and sensitive regarding that side of things.

It's an outstanding article from what I can see, and some of it is actually relevant to my real life research. I actually have professional reasons for fact-checking the earliest dates. The Sangam literature is directly relevant to my own work. As you can imagine, where Kannada literature may overlap with this I will be very interested indeed.

Thanks for your note. Best wishes. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

• Wikipedia:Editor review/Cosmic Latte

Talk about not addressing the issue!

Don't forget to include the link to my response to you. Risker (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk about not addressing the issue

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I would say nada. The question of favoratism was never answered by you. Posting a link to your page here of my post to you somehow does not address that. Sign me Confused, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas!--WillC 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback at User_talk:Tohd8BohaithuGh1

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Tohd8BohaithuGh1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Holidays

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

talkback

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

talkback

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

Copyediting request.

I feel slightly nervous about asking this, but figured it was worth a shot. Currently an article I've nominated, Revolt of the Comuneros, is at FAC with a few comments but not many. User:Karanacs issued a weak oppose based on prose concerns, but isn't up for going through the whole article himself; I asked him about the issue on his talk page, and he specifically recommended you as a good copyeditor. Would you be willing to take a shot at the article and see if there are any further problems that could be fixed?

Just to be clear, don't feel obliged at all; Wikipedia is a volunteer project, I can ask others, etc. That said, I'd certainly appreciate anything you can offer. SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will give it a try. I do not know anything about the subject matter, so feel free to change anything I do. Unintentionally, I may change the meaning. I am assuming you have addressed the specifics already brought up on the FAC, so that your concern is more general issues? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look. That said, if you feel you don't have the historical background, then I can certainly ask other people.

As for your initial comments... the bit about the lede I'm not sure I follow. I'm fairly certain that the lede *does* summarize the article pretty accurately and is the short blurb version you might see in a less in-depth work. Do you have any particular complaints about it? (The only one I can think of was that Karanacs wants the phrase "with the deaths of the other heirs" taken out, which I'm not sure of yet myself.) As for other information in the Origins... interesting comment, because I was worried that others might complain that the section was too large. The origins section is already pretty large - necessarily so, IMHO - and with the article already fairly long, I'd really be hesitant about adding in more background. Is there something that you thought should be included in particular? Or even a general area you felt lacks enough context? Would some kind of link to the history of Spain/Europe in the early 1500s help? Not sure what seems to be "missing" here. SnowFire (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll describe to you an example of the problem I encountered. I read the lede, which was fine. Then I moved down to Origins. Immediately, I had to start referring to the lede in order to under stand what Origins was talking about.

• This is the first sentence in Origins. "Discontent had been brewing for years before the uprising." - What "discontent", where, and before what "uprising"? This section should stand on its own, and the reader should not have to refer back to the lede to understand this section. The lede "summarizes" the article; it does not supplement the article. Therefore, every section of the article must stand alone without the lede, and everything in the lede should be more fully explained in the article.
• Although I frequently copy edit articles with content unfamiliar to me, the article must address the "general reader". Usually, as I copyedit the article, I learn the subject matter also. This must be possible for the general reader, as an article cannot expect the reader to be familiar with the names, history, country etc. described in the article. This article, while very good and containing important content, is not accessible to someone like me, who would like to know the history the article describes, but gets too confused in trying to figure it out. This problem can often happen when editors are so familiar with the material that they lose perspective of how the article may read to someone who is not.
• As I said, if I weren't feeling so overwhelmingly tired and had sufficient time, I might be able to figure it out. Even tomorrow, I may have new life. I'm not meaning to be discouraging, as the article obviously contains important content and is a potential FA. I want to be informed about the events in the article. Perhaps tomorrow will be another day! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm. Yes, the rest of the article should stand on its own, but I mostly disagree with your comment. The discontent is described right in the next paragraph; that was just the opening sentence. And the uprising is obviously the subject of the article, which if there's one thing that can be taken from the lede I think would be it. I've changed "uprising" to "Revolt of the Comuneros," but I really doubt that there would be confusion on that matter.

As for making articles accessible to random audiences, I can only wholeheartedly agree. Some things will inherently be "well, if you want to know more about this, click on the link," but I do want the article to flow well regardless of whether the person clicks for further information. In fact, I've been arguing just that on the FAC page on a few topics, since I think readers unfamiliar with a topic are aided by things like short sections or repeated wikilinks (since it's not obvious just who random Spanish name X was again). Same with moving some interesting and catchy material to captions. If you have any further comments about topics that seem unclear, definitely bring them up. SnowFire (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you would not be happy if I copy edited the article. You have a way you want the article, I can see from reading your reactions to comments at the FAC, which is fine. However, that is not a good atmosphere for a copy editor to enter, as I would not want to ask about every change I make. You would end up being unhappy with what I do, I fear! Good luck though! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Slow response on my part (didn't notice you'd replied), but thanks for looking it over at all, and it's no problem if you don't want to copyedit it.

As for discussing matters... well, yes, that's what makes a better article though, right? When I worked with others on copyediting the article before even bringing it to FAC, it was a back and forth endeavaor - we'd chat about each section over IM and discuss what worked, what didn't, and which sections were phrased that way by accident and which ones were intentionally set up that way. I understand if you're not enthusiastic about it, but I hope this isn't too common - me disagreeing with a potential change doesn't mean I'm dead-set against it, as this is a wiki, after all. Just some random philosophical thoughts. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

MDD

You just made changes here:

Although the relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, it appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. In such cases, patients may be unaffected by therapeutic intervention. ref: Harvnb|Barlow|2005| pp=227-28}} < --this is from old textbook-->

First question: What does the first sentence mean? I read it: Although the relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, [the relationship between sleep and depression] appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. Does that make sense? To me, this particularly strong relationship seems undefined and meaningless.

2nd question: The ref appears to be from 2005, not 2002 as in edit summary.

3rd question, while I'm at it: I don't see what the [who?] is questioning. - Hordaland (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Answers

This is the original sentence in the article that I changed, that was referenced by the textbook:

The REM sleep stage, the one in which dreaming occurs, tends to be quick to arrive, and intense, in depressed people. Although the precise relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, it appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. In such cases, patients may be relatively unaffected by therapeutic intervention.

This original sentence has been in the article for months, but has always bothered me because it is vague and because it is referenced by an average-level psychiatric textbook. (WP:MEDRS says textbooks are not adequate references.) Therefore I tried to shorten the sentence and remove some of its vagueness. Coming after the specific researched-based information in the article, as that sentence does, referenced by recent research findings published in review articles, on the relationship of specific brain systems to depression, and to the effectiveness of antidepressant medications that impact the same brain systems, as also to research on the manipulation sleep cycles as well on the effectiveness of light therapy to treat certain types of depression, which also involve the same brain systems, this vague sentence seems particularly irrelevant and clumsy.

I apologize if I changed the sentence in a way you do not like. You, of course, may restore the original sentence quoted above.

As far as the year of publication, I am sorry. I must have mistyped. The is meant to request a more specific reference that could hopefully clarify the meaning of the sentence as well as provide a higher quality reference for it. Frankly, I think the sentence is misleading and possibly untrue for the purposes of this article. I would like to see some evidence for such a vague sentence.

Please change as you see fit. I have worked hard over the months to improve the quality of this article and the references, but I am getting tired and losing interest—especially as it takes so long to load! Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to criticize your edit; sorry if it looked like it! I agree entirely that the statement in the middle sentence is vague. In fact, so vague as to be meaningless, as I suggested above.

I wonder if the sentence about REM is important to the article ("tends to be quick to arrive, and intense..."). If not, I think the whole paragraph in your blockquote above could just be deleted. I'll suggest that on the talk page and see if anyone objects. - Hordaland (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

REM it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't remember REM info "tends to be quick to arrive, and intense...") as particularly of note. It is not routinely asked about in a clinical assessment, for example, or mental status exam. Without something more substantial than that vague mention, I don't see the relevance of throwing it in the article without some follow up. Obviously sleep in general is important, and that is mentioned and referenced. I recall that some types of antidepressant drugs increase REM sleep, but there is no reference in the article, and that is considered a "side effect". Personally, I don't think the statement adds any solid info and its removal would not lessen the relevance of any information in the article. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What?

I'm confused. I was talking about the 15 opposes I got based on my using the term "for shit" on my talk page. What did that have to do with you? Maybe my brain is still fogged, but I'm not clear why you are offended. You have been a great help and I have no wish whatsoever to offend you. Please respond either here or on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wehwalt: "I was willing to overlook the number of times he has questioned my good faith or honesty, but indirectly soliciting 3RR backup [1] compels me to oppose at this time." (Maybe I am too sensitive!) Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one took up Sandy's cause and AuburnPilot strongly defended me and you, I saw no need to say anything. I was told that anything that the candidate says during the RfA process is potential fodder for the opposes. That is why I was very choosy in replying to the opposes. I had no idea you were offended by my not replying, and I thought I made it clear after the RfA closed that I valued, and value your contributions and, well, wikifriendship greatly. Frankly, I was about to ask you for your help, I'm planning on bringing Rudolf Wolters at the least up to GA standard. I'm not sure the material is there for FA, but at least to GA. What is there now is garbage (I've started some work).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will be willing to help you. I was being oversensitive. Sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad. Thank you. I am sorry if I did not catch on to the fact that you were offended, RfA is a difficult process. Sandy went so over the top on her drama that I think she scared off potential opposes who just didn't want to be associated with the drama. Anyway, on Wolters. Next few days, I'm planning to bring in material from the Speer bios. I could use online sources, photographs, anything like that, as well as copyediting and advice. Basically all I intend to keep from what is there now is his vital statistics and bibliography. Sereny is probably the best source for Wolters, I will be drawing heavily from her book on Speer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is taking shape well. One problem is that it is hard to make avoid making it another article about Speer.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear why the relationship between Wolters and Speer became embittered. I am gathering, from what you have written, that it was a one way street, and that Speer held something against Wolters. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From the way Speer's biographers present it, Speer took Wolters for granted and failed to show very much gratitude for all Wolters had done for him. In addition, they disagreed over Speer's taking responsibility; Wolters felt that Speer repainted the past to make the points he wanted to make. There were other things as well. I'll detail them all when I get to that part of the story which should be tomorrow. I've ordered a copy of the Schmidt book because he actually interviewed Wolters directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will be about Wolters' view of Speer, if that is Wolters primary reason for being of interest. (Was he much of an architect?) Perhaps some exploration of how Wolters managed over the years to remain loyal and only at the end became bitter. Although his disillusionment over Speer's failure to take responsibility is a reason, somehow to me there must be more. You said he continued to support him after the trials. And he had to have known Speer as a person enough not to be that surprised at Speer's behavior. How did he go along with what was happening all those years himself, I wonder? (Regarding the RFA, I wasn't offended that you did not respond, as I agree that not responding is the best policy in those situations. I was just very surprised at the change against me, and could not understand how what I did could be construed that way. So for a while I was confused and fearful of making posts that may unintentionally harm someone. It was a little scary that someone was monitoring my posts to such an extent that such a post would be used to insinuate I was doing something unethical.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was more concerned that Speer was slanting history the other way. I've added a couple of paragraphs to the post release section. Sandy almost certainly had my talk page on watchlist, or else when she found out I was going for Admin, she went through my talk page with a fine tooth comb looking for dirt. We had a lot of disputes at TFA/R and at Natalee Holloway. She doesn't like me, though she is sucking up to me now, just in case, I think (I am not ambitious and wasn't even interested in being an admin, frankly, I'm an article writer). She wasn't monitoring you, she just leapt on it with glad cries, and as I've pointed out, went way over the top. There are a lot of vultures hovering just in case SHE ever decides to run for admin, it would be a bloodbath!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Slanting history the "other" way? You mean minimizing what happened? If that is the case, that is indeed interesting. It would make for complicated historical dynamic. (I would be very much against Sandy running for admin, as I perceive her as too biased, protecting those who are "hers" and inexplicably trashing others who, I guess, have not toed the line.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the latest quote I put in there, he's mad at Speer for demonizing Hitler.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All the basic info is in there. It needs a lot of polish to be easy on the reader's eye and mind, but it is basically complete. My mind hurts.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Will look at tomorrow as too tired tonight. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pallid sturgeon

Thank you for reviewing the article I started.--MONGO 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not good

Mattisse... edits like this one just are not good. Not what we expect from seasoned contributors. Way too blatantly assuming bad faith and needling a fellow contributor. I've not followed your contributions closely but I'm not liking what I've seen... as I commented at Che, your approach may not be suitable. At all. I think you need to revisit it. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I am just way too tired of this editor following me around and accusing me of underhanded dealings as she did in the RFC of User:Wehwalt and other issues. I am quite aware she has a network of email alerts and other "alerts" of those who "step in". I guess you are one of those. She has nothing currently to do with Che Guevara so it is reasonable to expect her to just stay away and stop refactoring my comments so that they are out of context and rendered meaningless to the other editors of the article. Is this really a "big deal" in the scale of things on Wikipedia? Hard to believe. But if it is, I am on the edge of quitting anyway, as this sort of thing is beyond worth hassling over. As the person in question is so "busy" that she registers numerous complaints about her work load, I think it is reasonable to ask that she just leave me alone. Please let me know if this issue is so important that it warrants a message to me from you. If it is, then I am out of here. With all due respect, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty busy myself. So you can assume that if I left you a message, I felt "this issue is so important that it warrants a message to" [you] "from" [me]... As far as "following around and accusing of underhanded dealings" goes, I think you've the wrong end of the stick. My suggestion is that you stop needling people and stop assuming bad faith. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to do so if the person in question will do the same. Frankly, the fact that you would even post me about this reflects poorly on Wikipedia in general and your priorities in particular, in my opinion. May I inquire how this "huge issue" came to your attention to begin with? Is this a major issue, really? I find it hard to believe that both of you do not have more important things to do. This communication from you drastically reduces my already plummeting view of Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think focusing on how to improve your own interactions with others, rather than worrying about others, or about Wikipedia in general, or how I choose to spend my time, or what brings matters to my attention, would be the best use of your time. ++Lar: t/c 04:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this conversation really productive? (butting in since my name got dropped). I think Matisse had every right to be offended by what Sandy said during my RfA; she basically accused both of us of conspiring to violate 3RR. That kind of thing affects relationships here, and his sarcasm was mild compared with what was said to Sandy during that RfA by another editor. And I don't see anything unjustified in what Matisse said; Sandy did not in fact oppose on the third failed FAC. If Sandy is offended, she should speak for herself; if she does not care to, it is not for another editor to be indignant on her behalf.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Wehwalt. Everything you say is right on. These "defenders" sprout out of the woodwork, as if they are in a queue. Since I "refactored" the page (the "cause" of this latest sprouting from the woodwork) back to the way it was, before the person whom Lar feels compelled to defend, interfered, the dialogue has become constructive. I believe he is misled. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of this similar incident during the RFA. Never did figure out how that got pulled out of a 240K or so archive number four on the Holloway article. Unless . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have only this to say, which is that I am in complete agreement with Lar, and I really do believe that you. Mattisse, need to reasess your attitude towards this project. I will fully admit that I myself am not perfect, with luck and a fair wind will never be perfect, and I am no role model. But it's a mistake to believe that long-standing and (I firmly believe) good faith editors like SandyG aren't worn down by the kinds of cheap pot shots that have apparently become your trade mark. I have had disagreements with many editors in the past, including SandyG and probably even Lar, but I hope that I have never carried them on into grudge matches, and I hope that I never will. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You have lost all credibility with me and need not post your opinion on my page, except to provide evidence for my "sprouting out of the woodwork" theory. (You have sprouted!) All you do is reinforce my distaste for the nature of your unenviable ways, which is the underbelly of Wikipedia: protect those you must to survive. You have lost me; your ways are not something to admire. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't know me, this isn't real life. Time to lighten up a bit? Just a little bit? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, just to leave a note (because I needed to see the current hubbub) - I don't think Lar is part of Sandy's sekret force. He doesn't know the handshake. Or, I could just be on the outs. I do have a mouth that chases people away. Perhaps that is it and thats how I never met Lar at one of the meetings. :) I know I don't have any credibility with you, so you can take this as a silent confirmation of Lar really being a member. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

They change the handshake at random intervals. And now they require a "strong" handshake, at least ten digits, with at least one wearing a Secret Decoder Ring.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you believe this?? All over a stupid, trivial post, having nothing to do with anything relevant that apparently upset the Person. They all have ESP? Where did Lar come from? Why is he posting on my page over an incredibly stupid incident? I know about the "network" as this is a very frequent happening on my page. Believe it or not, I am so IMPORTANT that legends of editors watch my page, not only my page but by contributions! Can you believe that? Well, what can I say? That is how important I am. (Unless, of course, there is some kind of "other" network employed by the Queen Bee to alert the sabotages of all that is not 100% positive of the Big Wig, like the handshake at random intervals.) Ottava Rima, you one of those? Do you watch my page and my contributions assiduously, or do you have ESP or what? Why are you posting on my page? What is the secret "alert" system? Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the pattern of behaviour not just the particular edit. That edit is one example of many. Again, focus on your own behaviour instead of attacking all and sundry unless they 100% agree with you, and instead of seeking conspiracies and the like. ++Lar: t/c 14:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The egocentrism of the above made me giggle. <3 I actually came to post about something else but I got side tracked and decided to be silly. I only have one talk page on my watch list and it is one that always makes me cringe when the orange bar lights up. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Then go away. Surely you are capable of that. Nothing compels you to watch my page. (And you seem deficient in recognizing irony also, perhaps a common quality of the Big Wiggers.) Not a very appealing bunch of secret hand shakers, are you Big Wig supporters. I am lucky in not having to suck up. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would I go when I just said that I enjoyed it? And when have I ever sucked up to anyone? Haha. I should probably start. It would do me good. I'm just as confused as to why Lar stepped in also. He seems to come appear at the most peculiar moments. At least when the devil would do that, he would offer interesting gifts. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Note - once they fix the DYK bot and plow through with accepting any PD or translated material, they will run bots to put that on wiki, have a bot auto DYK nom it, then have another bot to run it through. Who needs editors anymore when we just hae robots. :) DYK mentalities have become strange as of late. Its as if no one cares about how it was. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

#

Did You Know I was trying to fix up the numbering bollocks occasioned by my # omission when I noticed you'd replied and sorted it at WP:Requests for adminship/Suntag ?! Ta :) All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, apparently the # is added with : after it; that is the key to correct display. Periodically I forget and have to learn it again! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sand list

Mattisse, have you considered also compiling stats on how many of those articles Suntag has actually created or expanded himself? Glancing through, a lot of them appear to be just things he's nominated that others have written. either way (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it took me hours just to compile what I did. If you look at the articles they are mostly trivial. In fact, one was a spin off, in the form of a list, of one I wrote myself! The question is, would he have done any of that if he had not received the trinkets and medals! The article of mine that he received a DYK for was a part of an FAC that we had to ditch. I doubt that the fact it received a DYK was of any benefit to it. In fact, I wonder if the hook was even accurate. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it. Nothing has been added to it as a result of being a DYK. So much for editors flooding to an article to improve it. Very boring hook, that would be meaningless to anyone not already knowing the subject matter. I think DYK is a crock and I am completely disillusioned. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

A proposition for ya!

Matisse: I've noticed you around in some of the "back-room" areas of the wikis, particularly DYK and RfA. I've done the same thing before: for awhile I spent much time tracking down copyright violations at DYK/GA. And you know what? It made me miserable; I became suspicious and generally lost enthusiasm for the project. I needed to get back to doing what I was here to do in the first place! And, that's why I am approaching you.

I recall that about 5 months ago, you performed an excellent GA review of Marquis de Lafayette (seriously, I'd meant to thank you for it; but, too much time went by). Well, I and others are still working on that article. We have some NPOV problems dealing with the French Revolution (much harder to write than I had thought!), and we have added lots of text that probably needs polished. Regardless, I thought I would extend an invitation to you; we've got a lot of extra work, from your excellent GA review I think you could help; and it'll give you an excuse to leave the "back-room" for a bit. What do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I can take a look at the article. Thanks for asking. I can polish text but issues of POV/NPOV may be beyond me. You are right that where I have been hanging out is bad for the soul! And I feel "miserable"! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's great! Take your time; I've slowly been able to gather some momentum back, so it should be fun. I've been in your spot, where I've felt disillusioned. What helped was when I remembered that there are tons of editors who truly contribute for the sake of it. They merely want to build a better encyclopedia. The rest are merely a small subset; a vocal subset, but a small subset. I realized that the best thing for me was to just do what I like to do. Not sure if it'll help, but it worked for me. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Do not modify the comments of others

Concerning your edit here, please refrain from altering the comments of other editors. When I said that I helped Sano reach GA, I really meant it. Now assume good faith from here one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! Since I was the one who help Sagara Sanosuke reach Ga, (see number of edits in history [2] and it was late at night, I wrongly altered it. I apologize. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian language

Hi Mattisse, nice to see you again. You just altered the head section of Mongolian language, as I supposed someone would do sooner or later. I've taken up your first edit, tried to make immediate use of the second and deleted the rest, but tried to provide a clarifying comment in a footnote. If you have still problems in understanding these lines, maybe you can set me on the problematic points so that I may try to fix it. Regards, G Purevdorj (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lockdown FA

Yeah, thanks for the copyedit and the support. It was a nice surprise to get on and see it pass. Well that is 1 done and 11 to go.--WillC 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a big achievement for that kind of article. Huge! Are they all going to be TNA wrestling articles? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is my plan: 1.--WillC 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully you gained some experience, and HOPEFULLY you will figure out a way to eliminate some of the detail (since that seemed to be the major complaint). I will help to the degree that I can. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can do it. Lockdown has been months in the making and is no where near as good as I can write. I just got tired of it and didn't want to change anything that was already good. Future FAs will be very different. What do you think?--WillC 01:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's good to have goals, as long as it doesn't drag you down. You did a great job. The strength of you reference citations really made them take you seriously. I can help as I did before, but you know that I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter, although I have copy edited other wrestling articles, like for User:GaryColemanFan. (He is good at explaining plots and back stories.) Happy 2009 - lets make it a good year! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me just tell you now, I'm not asking for your help or really need it. I don't know where you are getting that from. Sorry if I sound like an ass, I'm trying to say it nicely. I'm just sharing my ideas. I want to say thanks again for the copyedit on Lockdown and for supporting the article in its FAC. If I need help again you'll be the first I ask. I tend to like to work alone, mainly because I'm hard to work with on some areas.--WillC 02:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I know. Everything I do is completely voluntary at Wikipedia. I changed some things on Slammiversary (2008) - hope you don't mind. Just that I have become familiar with certain requirements for GA and FAC as I do a lot of reviews and copy editing - no big deal. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I don't mind. I need to clean up that article anyway. I did it in a rush back in October to get three on GAN. Two of them have passed already: No Surrender (2008) and Hard Justice (2008). Slammiversary is the only one left and I have to change alot of things in it when someone undertakes the GA review, which I hope is soon since it is the oldest article on GAN right now. Strangely most of mine become the oldest. Lockdown was, Sacrifice was, Hard Justice was, and now Slammiversary. It is weird.--WillC 02:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because the articles are long, and wrestling articles are hard to follow for those not knowing the subject. I did my first one because it had been hanging around forever. I finally had to say to the editor, "this article makes no sense to me!" The editor fixed it in a day or two so it did make sense. Meanwhile, I was getting used to the scripts etc. so now I am not so overwhelmed by them. Also, I know the links to wikilink to, which really helps. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they are hard unless your understand what the subject is about. I don't review any articles on GAN because of it. Though I will soon to help get the backlog down. There is the problem. Are articles that are promoted to GA really Good articles. See, someone like me wouldn't know the regulations for a film article or video game. I haven't read the full manual of style article. Plus I haven't read the Video game and films project's MoS pages. I think GAN should be more like FAC. It is made on a poll of votes rather than one person.--WillC 04:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You can look at the various project standards, eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Films for their standards, and also look at various FA articles in whatever category of relevance. That is better than reading the whole MoS, which I agree is useless, mind numbing and confusing. But you can look up specific issues on Mos, like "Quotations" etc. and just read the specific issues involved. I agree that "becoming familiar" with th entire Mos is a waste of time. Reviewing an article in an unfamiliar areao is a great way of learning about aritlce construction and requirement. At least it has been for me. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I wouldn't say the MoS is useless. I just think it is entirely too long and too many extra articles to read.--WillC 05:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood (film)

You have my permission to copy-edit as much as you want. Wildroot (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		Awarded for championing the ideals of encyclopedic writing and bringing about countless article improvements as part of her GA review work. Jayen466 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello from Ling.Nut

Hi Matisse,

Did I ever thank you for the barnstar? If not, then everything my wife says about me being oblivious and ungrateful is patently true. ;-)

I... have been aware of your unhappiness for quite some time, but have never commented, because I was unsure how (or whether) I could help. I... hope you'll read my comments here. They sum up my position quite nicely. I also hope you can learn to WP:DGAF about any slights, real or perceived, buy other Wikipedians. I say "real or perceived" because BOTH happen all the time—somepeople are insulting, and some people appear insulting when they don't mean to be. You know what I mean.

Later! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ling.Nut. I have always felt your kindness. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Dear Mattisse, you are right in that I would recuse from an arb case involving you as you noted here. However, that is not the next step. Generally, one asks for this as a venue for community discussion, given you either cannot or will not take on board what has been explained to you before. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I hope you will respond on the RfC. It is not meant to be a lynch-mob, and it is very important that your point of view be included. That will help everyone reading it to try to put things in more perspective. I realize it hasn't been long since this was launched and you might be busy, but I wanted to ask/remind anyway. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Millennium '73

• I am not understanding why this event should be such an emotional issues.

The event is at the crossroads of several conflicting points of view. First, any article related to Prem Rawat is an emotional issue because some editors here are followers/students of his who have a very high opinion of him, while other editors are former followers/students who have a very low opinion of him. Those two groups will never reconcile or agree. The majority of the editors on both sides are single purpose accounts who only edit on this topic. It's all they care about. (FYI, I'm not a former or current follower, and I don't know any personally.) Another aspect of this topic with emotional resonance, which just came up on the talk page, is that in the past followers considered Rawat to be God - at the very least a successor to, or reincarnation of, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, et al and even the oominsicent, omnipotent god of all things. Followers do not say that anymore and do not like the old claims to be remembered. (In the early 1980s, Rawat ordered the destruction of all previous publications and recordings from the movement as part of the change in approach.) The event, and the press conference in particular, marks one of the few documented occasions when Rawat was questioned about those claims. Followers were also quoted or interviewed about the claims much more extensively than at any other time or place. Third, the event was pivotal in the history of the movement. It went from being what was called the fastest growing new religious movement in the West to a marginal sect. While there were other factors, the failure of the festival and the poor press that resulted were key elements in that dramatic change. What does all of this mean for Millennium '73? The article itself has been remarkably stable since it was posted in August. Text has been moved around, added or deleted, but on the whole the article hasn't changed very significantly. There have been no edit wars or major policy-related disputes. Editors who are followers/students would like some details removed but those are well-sourced and presented neutrally (IMO) so their inclusion or exclusion is just a matter of editorial judgment and not a policy issue. In related articles, some editors have argued at length over how to summarize quotes, which is why I've been reluctant to do so. However the good news is that there don't seem to have been any disagreements over the summarizations I've done since the GAN began. I think that is a good omen for the future stability of the article, even though it's part of a emotionally charged topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on why this event is so important as a turning point. And thanks for the relatively hopeful outlook regarding the future of the article. (I am relieved.) Actually, I had been noticing, compared to some politically charged article, the talk page has heen calm and civil. I will let you go through move of your summarizing and then take another look at it. Let me know if you need my help for anything. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note on the talk page. I'm sorry you're leaving and I hope you'll return. Unless you have a better idea, probably the best thing to do with the Millennium article is to close the GAN as unresolved and relist it again. I'll do that if I don't hear back from you. Best wishes.   Will Beback  talk  03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be travelling for a couple of weeks, so I won't be able to work anymore on the article. Personally, I think it meets the GA criteria, but that's for you to determine. I'd appreciate it if you could pass or fail the article as it is now. (I know you're understandably pre-occupied with that RfC. It's regretable that such things interfere with improving the encyclopedia.)   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already notified GAN that I have withdrawn from reviewing any articles. I am leaving Wikipedia as I have been driven away by an RFC that has made it impossible for me to continue here by poisoning the atmosphere in a way that I can never recover from. I am asking them to ban me and I fervently hope they will for my own sake. Good luck with your article. Warmest regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I didn't realize. I'll go ahead and proceed as I suggested above. Best wishes and thanks for your input on this as well as for contributing to the project.   Will Beback  talk  07:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder

		The Original Barnstar
		A barnstar for Mattisse in recognition of her work in helping bring 'Major depressive disorder to FA status. SilkTork *YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just spent some time studying Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart and I have left a comment on the RFC.

I feel that you have been misunderstood and poorly treated. SilkTork *^YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much. I appreciate that you took the time to actually look through the FAC and see what did happen, and in spite of the fact that I took out my tormented state of mind on you in the past. It is persons with your heart that may reform me on Wikipedia. With my warmest regards and hopes for pleasant and helpful interactions with you in the future, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the unpleasant discussion at RfC

• The unpleasant discussion at RfC seems to be spinning in circles, unfortunately. I hope you will see that I am not against you. But it is plain to me that two things are happening over there:

1. The main thing that people are saying is "Please stop accusing folks—almost a cast of thousands of editors—of being in a clique or group or cabal that is aligned against you. It hurts us personally [they are saying], and has a damaging impact on the morale of various Wikipedia processes."
2. Your response is to say... that the comments are those of a clique or group or cabal of editors that is aligned against you. Lather, rinse, repeat.

• Do you see the circularity there? I... hope you can see three things:

1. Everyone is not arrayed against you. In fact, if you read the RfC carefully, you can spot genuine PRAISE from several folks. People like you and like what you do. They are deeply hurt by the fact that you don't trust them (you seem almost not to trust anyone).
2. The World is Not That Way. The world is not this blindingly hostile place where cartoon-character bad guys in black hats hang out on every corner, attacking innocent townsfolk.
3. And So What!?!?! That, I mean, is the only sane response if you encounter someone who really is such a cad. You are a valuable AND worthwhile person. If anyone denigrates that, then that comes from their heart or perceptions, and does not reflect reality.

• Good luck. I hope you will see that if you lay down your arms and accept others (even though they are flawed), the army of bad guys you fear or distrust so much will dissolve into nothing. There simply is no such army. That's my opinion, anyhow. There may be one or two WP:DICKs hanging around, but that's when you pull out your "And So What!?!?!"
• Best wishes, Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As an editor with whom you have a good working relationship (thank you for saying that), I second what Ling says. Geometry guy 11:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are retaining a sense of humor about all this, Mattisse. Adding "Cheers" to your signature did make me smile. (Or at least raise an ironic eyebrow.) Geometry guy 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RfC closure

I have proposed that the RfC be closed, forthwith and thought as a courtesy that I should inform you of this.

FWIW, I stand by my comments at the RfC that you're a terrific contributor with an unhappy ability to upset other users in good standing. I really hope this can all be a springboard for a happier way forward.

All the best for 2009, --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

apologies

Mattisse, I am sorry that I argued with you at the RfC. While I don't regret the sentiments behind my comments, placing them in that context was inappropriate of me, especially as you had made it clear that you felt the RfC tone was too combative already. It was certainly not my intention by participating in the RfC to make you feel attacked, and I regret if my recent posts there had that effect. Karanacs (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology. However, I cannot trust anyone who would participate in this group stripping a person of all shred of self respect. . Whatever your intention was, you went along with the FAC people. They are destructive of a person's individual being. They seek to smash and destroy. I do not think it takes a genius to realize that ripping a person's guts apart is not the way to gain cooperation and good will.

It is obvious that the intent is to drive me away. If I am not banned, which I hope will happen, I will continue here with the ugliness now sown in my heart forever by the pure petty meanness of this RFC and the people behind it.

The RFC by the sock puppets Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse was far kinder. They at least were honest and up front. Hatred disguised as pseudo-kindness and "helpfulness" is far more disgusting that honesty. I am repulsed by all this pretense at "helping" me. Actions speak louder than words, as they say. So they seek to strip me of all self respect so I will come crawling back and be a workhorse again for FAC elite. No thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 07:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

From your recent comments in the RfC, its talk page, and Maralia's talk page, you have made a point of stating that SandyGeorgia has not praised you. Is it praise you wish from Sandy or other FAC regulars? Many of your comments about FAC and its regulars have me utterly confused and perplexed. Because I do not understand them, they irritate me; I assume the logical break is yours. That is my failure, so I am attempting here to clarify what it is you are trying to accomplish. Quite plainly, I do not understand. Do you wish to be praised? Is that what you are after? Is it something else?

My communication with you has been quite minimal. From your comments, it appears that you do not respect those who participate in FAC. That is your right. I suppose you have your reasons for doing so, but I do not know what they are. Perhaps you do not realize that I have treated your view with respect. I think you have good reasons for believing what you believe. I just don't know what they are. If I lacked respect for many people as you appear to feel about FAC, their words would not mean much to me. For this reason I have not communicated with you, assuming my words would mean very little to you. It is from this vantage that I admit I am also confused about why you would want praise from editors you have demonstrated so little respect for.

Then it is perhaps foolish for me to attempt to negate your belief that I am being controlled by anyone on the boards, including SandyGeorgia. I consider myself the highest authority on what motivates me to do what I do. Apologies and much respect to Sandy, but she is fairly low on the list. What you may see as acquiescence through silence is actually a very deliberately limited view of what happens behind the scenes, a desire to flee at the first sign of drama (this example notwithstanding), and a loathing of political cabal-like behavior in the extreme. Your view that I am not only a member of this FAC cabal but one of its main perpetrators made me assume for quite a while that you had me confused with someone else's username. I can only state what I see from my experience, and from that it appears there is a cabal at FAC only because you say it exists. It is there at your insistence, and in a way, it seems to me that you are helping to create a group of editors that resist your comments. I would expect a group to chill toward my opinions should I malign their efforts and accuse them of doing less than average work. Typing that last sentence makes me wonder if we are both after the same thing: praise.

I've looked at your contributions. You appear to be very dedicated to article improvement. Likewise, when I review FACs or write articles, I put forth a lot of effort. I think most FAC regulars do. I miss some stuff. I get easily distracted and leave reviews partially complete. My comments are garbled sometimes. I comment on the esoteric and abstract instead of the concrete. Rather than point out our faults, as you have made clear you do not wish to have done to you, would it not help everyone to acknowledge first the time and effort we volunteers put into this project? Then with the spirit of cooperation, look to improve the areas that need it? If you intend to stay and work on articles it can only benefit you, me, and everyone we both come across to concentrate on articles, acknowledge each other's work, and end this. Allow me then to be first: losing your efforts at article reviewing and improvement would be a loss to the entire project. --Moni3 (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I deeply thank you, Moni3 for the above post. To answer you question about praise, it only came to mind reading the RFC. I don't seek praise, but when one editor, me, is singled out for slaughter, I tend to notice the disproportionality of treatment by the FAC delegate. The truth is that I don't have any trouble with FAC editors except the two who filed the RFC, Sandy and Casliber. That few of the others supported the RFC was heartwarming. I will remember to use edit summaries only very sparingly in the future, as that seems to be what ticked Sandy off the most. I also have learned that under no conditions may anything negative be said about FAC, that it is in the Sacred Cow category. Most of the rest of the accusations did not make sense to me and seemed to prove nothing relevant to the present. For the record, I have nothing against you or any of he other FAC editors except the two that filed the RFC. Thank you for your thoughtful post. I appreciate that you took the time to actually read the RFC contents. I don't think most did, but rather assumed because there was an enormous mass of diffs, there must evil editor at the center. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may interject, I'm a little concerned at the conclusions you're drawing from the RfC. The problem was not the use of edit summaries, but their content. Similarly, it's not criticism of FAC per se that has caused such ill-feeling, but rather the means you have used in the past to present your criticism. A number of previously uninvolved editors have been distressed by the way you've pursued various grudges, and it seems harmfully reductive to cast this as more persecution by Sandy and Casliber.

The only "accusation" I would make is that you seem very quick to personalize disputes, and then you hold the ensuing grudges nearly indefinitely. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, on some level - after all, none of us get paid to do this. You'll have more fun - and so will the rest of us - if you can just let some things go. Not every slight needs to be redressed. Not every dispute is the work of a "bad guy" and his or her minions. Not everyone needs to be dichotomized into "ally" or "mortal enemy" - some people are just colleagues. Not all critical feedback is an "attack". Not every adversary needs to be hounded to the ends of the earth. As the Buddha said, sometimes you've just got to let it go.

You obviously do a lot of good work here - that has been a recurring theme in the RfC comments. I'd like your interactions with your fellow editors to be smoother, for everyone's sake, but for that to happen I think it will be necessary to draw deeper conclusions from the RfC than those you've mentioned above. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have read your points and will take them to heart. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Best wishes. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

I just wanted to leave a little note. When I say I do not "like" you, I do not mean (in turn) that I dislike you. It takes a lot for me to be close with an individual, and bonds of friendship mean dearly to me. However, even basic humanity causes me to feel sympathy with and be concerned for others. There are very few that I do not like, and even they I would seek to be treated in a fitting manner. I am blunt and I air my mind. However, I hold no grudges. My email is always open if you feel that you need to talk about a topic. I always welcome conversation, no matter how unpleasant the topic may be. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ottava. I have noticed and been very impressed with your quality of airing your mind but holding no grudges. I have seen you get put down, sometimes rather brutally, and watched you get up, carry on and recover with that person, bearing no malice. Please feel free to interject your opinion in any situation I happen to be embroiled in, as I would appreciate your advice. You are definitely a distinctive person and seem free of the concerns with pride of self that preoccupy many of us. I am not very comfortable with email on Wikipedia and only periodically have it enabled. I much rather just be public, however foolish I may appear. But perhaps I should reconsider that position. I definitely need to get helpful, constructive input from others. May be email contact with you would help, as frankly the RFC was confusing and I was able to draw only a few main points from the massive number of diffs meant to show me my failings. So please, I welcome any clarification you can provide. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I offer email access not to encourage deception, but to allow people to voice their concerns without fear of others taking it the wrong way or just to vent. I don't reveal contents of email to anyone else unless given permission, nor do I really ask anyone to do anything but look and comment via email. I believe that the main priority, or the main desire, of people in difficult situations is to be heard and to be consulted with. Feeling neglected can do a lot of damage psychologically and only encourages problems. As long as I am able to, I will make sure that everyone has the ability to talk to me so that they do not feel neglected or as if no one is willing to listen. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Emails

One thing you need to stop doing Mattisse, is sending insulting emails to those with whom you have chosen to fall out, in which you repeat your allegations of cabalism and favouritism, and even extend it to accuse disinterested third-parties who have only your best interests at heart as having organised cliques against you. The email you sent me only a few days ago displayed a state of mind that cannot be comfortable for you to have to live with. I will not make that email public, but you may choose to do so if you wish. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Malleus, I apologize deeply. That was sent on January 4 when I was stunned and cut to the quick by what felt like a betrayal by you. I had trusted you enough to send that to you as I was thinking of you then differently, as still my friend on some level. I deeply regret it. You are the only person I have sent an email to as I never use email. Only recently (the last week or so) have I even had email enabled because of the RFC. I am very sorry for the email to you. I am sorry you are so angry and will never email you again.

Please ask all the others if they have received an email from me. I have not sent any other emails. I have answered two emails having nothing remotely to do with the RFC or FAC.

Here is the content of that email to you, as I want nothing hidden:

It is very odd to see your comments now about me, as I did believe in what you said on your talk page. Now it turns out that your talk page is not a safe place at all, and that the views you encouraged in me (and others), also were not safe. I was naive enough to believe in you then. Now I see you as part of the Calisber> SandyGeorgia> (and suddenly out of now where) ++Lars clique. I am very sorry to see you in this light, as I did believe in you originally. Regards, Mattisse

I will add that I know longer think this way, as expressed in the email. That email was an impulsive act of hurt. The many encouraging, thoughtful, kind comments made to be by those on the RFC have given me a new perspective, as well as MastCell's post above. I am beholden to those who took time to communicate with good will in an effort to help me.

I have been intending to post a thank you note on your page today. But I guess that would not be a very good idea now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not in the slightest angry Mattisse; I just want to see an end to this pattern of distrust and paranoia, that's all. There are no cliques, or at least if there are then nobody's yet invited me to join one. We're all on the same side, each doing what little we can to make the sum of human knowledge freely available to everyone. We need to be looking up at the stars, not down in the gutter. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I hope you don't mind my posting again. I am really heartened by your comments today, and I hope that you've taken the constructive criticism to heart. The general consensus appears to be that we are all really serious about wanting you to continue to contribute (to articles, to FAC, and to other processes); we'd just like the tone to be a little more civil and assume a little more good faith. Good luck!! Karanacs (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I welcome your post and am extremely heartened by all the helpful responses to the RFC, the specific remarks and the constructive attitudes of those commenting. For quite a while I have been feeling like the ugly duckling at FAC and that I was forcing my presence on those who wished me gone. I have taken the constructive criticism to heart. I feel like there is a wiki community and that I can be a part. I appreciate your continuing responses in the face of my rudeness. I have always had a high opinion of you and thank you for persisting in getting your message through to me. Thank you so very much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's start over

I think we kind of got off on the wrong foot at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. I appreciate the work you did on Sano, but I hope you understand that you weren't alone. Tintor2 and I also did the best we could've before having that copy-edit request made. Well, that's about it. Now Trunks (Dragon Ball) is another page I have my eyes on, though there isn't much I can do there. Do you think you'll have time to fix up that one too? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be wonderful to start over with you. I do not hold anything against you. My problem was that the minor incident between us, for which I hold nothing against you, was used in and RFC against me Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 as one of many incidents totally blown out of proportion to show how horrible I am. Thanks so much for the note to me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Guess now that that's over with, I'd like to know if you can perform a major copy-edit on Trunks' article. It would really make a difference. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC comments

Mattisse, please understand that the RfC was not meant to show that you are "horrible" (I personally would consign murders/rapists to the "horrible" category and few others); it was merely meant to illustrate that some of your comments and/or actions might have been inappropriate. It should not, and indeed cannot, be taken as a reflection on your character or you as a person, since I would suspect very few Wikipedians know you personally. We're only qualified to discuss the impact your actions have had on us. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, if the RFC were not meant to show that I am a horrible person, then the diffs would not have started 20 days after my first edit in May 2006, would not have included the sock puppet allegations which User:Salix alba and others said two years ago that the sock puppet issue should not be used as an albatross around my neck, would not have included very minor issues that had nothing to do with FAC, or anyone involved with FAC, would not have included allegations of me stirring up trouble at GAN/GAR when that only happened when SandyGeorgia entered into a situation to defend someone after I was already involved, would not have included allegations about Che Guevara article which the major neutral editor there User:Coppertwig denied, would not have included misleading and incorrect information like the link about ALL CAPS in article inline notes which some editors liked (eg Casliber, as I recall) and other did not, etc, etc. If the RFC had meant to be helpful, it would have included relevant and recent diffs specifically pointing to the problems. As it was, I could not even make my way through all those diffs, only getting through about half before realizing the tenor was petty and unconstructive. I do not blame you or most others who participate. Almost everyone gave me praise as well as pointing out faults. Except on editor. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, recommended that all RfCs include a link to any previous RfCs that involved the same editor. The inclusion of those links is standard practice, and not something meant to specifically draw attention to those incidents or to make you feel as if you were being hounded for mistakes/disputes far in the past. Their inclusion is also not meant to imply that fault was found with the editor named. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) Yes, I understand that. But the link to the sock puppet one was gratuitous. The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse should have covered it. This is the gratuitous link to a talk page:

• For more information on Mattisse's sockpuppetry: Sockpuppets of Mattisse, [3]

It has been stated in the past by User:Salix alba and others that this link was to be dropped and not used hound me for mistakes far in the past. I was blocked for 24 hours because of it. My debt for my mistakes has been paid and the incident has been over for 2 1/2 years. There was no legitimate reason to include it, except to allow an editor try to make a case that I have been evil, corrupt and a disservice to wikipedia since May 2006 when I started editing. It is just a link to a talk page posting, not a checkuser. If the version of the RFC that Casliber originated had been used [4], then there would have been a possibility of dealing with specific issues and something positive oould have resulted. Instead there was a "piling on" going way into the past that turned nasty and vindictive. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, the RfC is finished, take from it what you can. Many editors, including myself, have been dragged kicking and screaming before RfC, and AN/I. It's really no big deal, but it does give you a guide as to what is considered to be acceptable behaviour in this mad house. Who knows, you may be right, and there really is a massive conspiracy against you, with the sole aim of forcing you away from wikipedia. On the other hand it's at least as likely that there are a great many editors with whom you've worked succcessfully and productively in the past who are distressed to see you persist in your allegations of favouritism and cabalism. You decide. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The good part is all the support I have received. My opinion about the major players has plummeted even further. But as Ottava Rima has said many times (and I truly mean no disrespect to Ottava as I have great regard for that editor), I have received many, many emails. This time you have chosen the forces of evil, but as Encouragement from a former foe (below) illustrates, you never know who your friends are until it comes down to it. Ironically, most of the editors mentioned in the RFC as treated badly by me, have contacted me one way or another with the warmest of messages. And many solicited to support the RFC did not do so. I am much appreciative of all the positive support I have received. Warmest Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• OR comment

Trunks (Dragon Ball)

I dont want to bother, but the Trunks article still needs some work before a copy-edit. The article needs some thing such as fixing and adding refs.Tintor2 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you want me to do. I can start now or I can wait until you are ready. How close to ready are you? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I personally feel some of your copy-editing skills could prep the article first. It would certainly help me look over a few things. User:Sarujo will take of the refs later, as we've been discussing on his talk page. Your response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried some, but I will need some guidance. I left a message on the article talk page. I'm sure as I read through it more I will become more familiar with it as I did eventually with Sagara Sanosuke whom I grew to really like! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement from a "former foe"

Mattisse, I might be one of the last people you want to hear from right now (considering our sometimes turbulent past) but I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that despite all that, I still recognize that you provide many useful and helpful services to Wikipedia. We all can get emotional/impassioned at times (lord knows I am guilty) and I hope that the RFC (of which I had no intention of taking part) does not drive you away from the Wiki project for good. Most of us make up a beneficial link in the proverbial Wiki-chain and even though we have had our share of past edit-battles, I recognize that you bring many beneficial attributes to the overall wiki endeavor. It is my hope that this short message serves as a second olive branch (the first being my unilateral apology long ago) that should we work together in the future, I would hope it is with a fresh slate. Best regards.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank you very much, Redthoreau, and also I did get kind words of support from User:Coppertwig in my RFC. Did you notice how I tried to help you out during your recent block? (The admin was unreasonable about the time duration.) But I have noticed that you have learned a very good way of dealing with other editors. I think you and I are somewhat alike in that we are "impassioned" at times. I gratefully accept your olive branch and your message of support is much appreciated. (It is almost worth having an RFC to receive messages such as this one from you.) If we work together in the future, it will be with a fresh slate! Thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your response to my comment. I do hope things work out for you. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the fact that you actually read through all those diff with the care and rationality to point out some discrepencies. Perhaps, if it is ok with you, I will check with you the next time a problem seems to be emerging. Thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vincent Ogé

I note the merger tag you placed on the above article almost a year ago. I've completed the merge and expanded the article. He seems like quite an important subject, and I think there is more to be done. Thanks for placing the tag. Someone gets around to it eventually! Ohconfucius (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful. Haiti is badly neglected and I am so glad you got that article up to snuff. There were many people important to the history of Haiti that have no articles or just tiny stubs. And Haiti has a fascinating, complex history that we should all know. Congratulations! Perhaps you will have inspired me to get to work on some Haiti articles. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement

Without having checked all the details of it, that RFC looks like some people trying to silence criticism they don't like hearing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think you are right, but I also think I need to more carefully word my posts when I am frustrated. Sometimes that is hard to do when I have put a lot of work into an article. But I have learned from the RFC and I am really appreciative of the support I received! Thanks for taking the time to post here. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rickey Henderson

Since you did a GA review of the Rickey Henderson article in August, I was hoping you might have a look at it due to an edit war regarding the intro. Another editor and I are arguing over two potential versions, which can be found here and here; please have a look and offer your ideas. Thanks. MisfitToys (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly try to help with the article. Is the issue that you want to submit it to FAC and so want it to fulfill the FAC criteria? I will try to figure out what the situation is now. Fill me in about anything you think I should know. I will go through the article I really like Ricky Henderson, but I don't know a whole lot about baseball. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I'm not sure if I've said this yet but thanks for the fixes you made to Slammiversary (2008). I've been here a year today, and in that time I've gotten one FA and four GAs. Maybe before the night is over it will be five GAs. (reply on my page if you don't mind).--WillC 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will reply on your page as requested. But congratulations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm probably not going to take it to FAC for a while, but plans change. Why were you in trouble after a year?--WillC 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How much do you really want to know!! For a glimpse (if there is a time you are bored and have nothing else to do) read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse. The editors that filed that RFC were Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati, I learned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. A long story! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Marble Madness on main page

Thanks. To be honest though, I've always been wary of getting articles on the main page because they get vandalized so much. But it is still nice to see it there. Thanks again for the help getting it to FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

I know! A double-edged sword! I've been watching but figured you could handle it for now. but I will always keep my eye on it. Another article I was involved with Frank Zappa seems a magnet for vandals even now, months after the main page, and the primary editor, every once in a while, just reverts to the last stable version. Sometimes I feel as emotionally involved as the primary editor does. I really like your article! It may not be as bad as Zappa for attracting vandals and you may get some useful edits to it. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Masa Saito

Thanks for reviewing this article. I have looked for more personal information, but there's not a lot. I have found a good source for him being married to Michi Saito, but that's about all of the personal information that appears to be available (aside from the arrest). I'm not going to go to GAR, because I think you make a good case for it not having enough depth to interest the average reader. I was interested to see if it would meet the GA criteria, but apparently it's not there yet. Thanks again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was the case, as normally you are not at a loss for information! Is there more info on his wrestling style, what made him different, why was he so good as to win so many championships? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Great Mosque of Gaza

Wow! Thanks so much for the positive review, glad you enjoyed it! It's like the jewel of Gaza, shame what's going on. Anyhow, regards. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought TFAR nomination

History of evolutionary thought has been nominated at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to run on Feb 12, the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Since you were kind enough to express support for this idea during the pre-nomination debate I thought you might want to comment on the actual nomination. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! (I am the second highest contributor to the article, after you!) —Mattisse (Talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seth Sabal Photographer

Hello, Can you please tell me how to have my deleted page restored? I wrote an article yesterday about a photographer named Seth Sabal. I followed all the rules and established "notablity", sourced all my references and it was deleted. I think this might be a bias delete, based on old posts. I dont even know how about having this fixed, I think it should be included. I noticed all the nice articles that you have written, and would love you help.

Now the editors are insinuating some things about my grammer, and I feel so angry. This is supposed to be a great resource for students like myself, Its even our class assignement to make a Wiki article. I am flabbergasted that it been so difficult with all the correct reference links and obvious notability. PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me.

User:Wehwalt just undeleted this as I was trying to restore it. Karanacs (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did because it looks like there was a conflict between two admins, one of whom declined a speedy and one of whom granted it (three minutes apart, so I doubt it was wheel warring). I'm leaving them to figure it out themselves. Photoblogger already was in touch with one of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you will have to address it through User:Hoary's talk page. Apparently Hoary did save the article in a sandbox, where it can be improved and perhaps resubmitted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked for good references on this photographer and cannot find any. I am concluding that the page will not be undeleted as the subject is not notable. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HI Matisse, I went ahead and did my research like you suggested, I found and linked Vogue contributions of the photographer Seth Sabal. :) I knew that I would find it. I also found him in the list of Model.com as one of the top photographers for fashion in the world, with a Vogue Brazil link. I really apprciate all your help, and now I want to know how I would go about undeleting this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox

Thank you, Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(posted on user's talk page)

User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox is redirected to Wikipedia:Transwiki log so I can't find your article. Anyway, you can appeal to Wikipedia:Deletion review where you can appeal to have the article undeleted. You have to follow the directions there, which are rather hard to understand.

Do you know who deleted your article? What admin did? I think maybe it was User talk:Wehwalt. You should contact him first.

Or you could go to the Wikipedia:Help desk and ask for help. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in my sandbox, now that I have rewritten it, how to I go about submitting it again? Also, would you kindly take a look at it and see if you like it? Thank you!! SarahPhotobloggerNYT (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, it I had undeleted it to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand what is going on. If the article can be referenced, will it be allowed out of the sandbox? What's the deal? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, it's been deleted three times, once recently not counting the undelete/redelete. I'd really have to research who was involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PhotobloggerNYT, the article in your sandbox does not have reliable sources, which every article must have, especially one where there is no evidence this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, it is not a notable subject; it has no reliable sources. None. So I don't think you should spend time worrying about it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you consider "reliable" sources? I am at a loss, I thought linking the Vogue and Surface would be enough. Please elaborate. Thank you.PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PhotobloggerNYT, go to this page and read it: Wikipedia:Reliable sources I will try to find a sample article so you can see. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link, Mattisse.

PhotobloggerNYT, can we move this general discussion about your article and sources to your talk page, intead of having it on 3 users' talk pages? Unfortunately, Mattisse is correct about your sources, they are not reliable sources. Most of the sources you linked to are blogs, and anyone can say anything on a blog. If he's been in Brazilian, Italian, and Spanish Vogue they will have small articles about him that give his bio and credentials. This are considered reliable sources. But, please do start by reading the link that Mattisse gave, and I will copy this post to your talk page to discuss there. --KP Botany (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I saw (from following Malleus' contribs to be frank) that I came up once or twice in your FRC. Pity as the most I've seen of you before was when you did the GA review of Panic of 1907. I had palnned on asking you to help and comment on The Lucy poems, by far the most difficult article I have tackled; it was largely written by Ottava (we do fight but at the end of the day....) but we need input from a careful eye. Until I read the bits of the RfC, I had though we would get along, whatever, frankly I still think we would get likely along fine. I'm a bit prickly around the edges for sure, but ultimatly only interested in articles and compleatly and utterly uninterested in wiki-politics. Anyway the whole point of this is that when Lucy gets to GAR, and later FA, a reviewer like you would be pennys from heaven - (I'm asking for a favour here). Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm only interested in articles also. I don't do well in politics. It's when I get into political situations that I have problems, often because I have a low tolerance for cookies and fuzzy chatter and get impatient. There should be no problem between us, as I notice that you do seem to stay out of politics, so I could do copy editing for you. Let me know when. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. You know how it is, the to do list gets longer and longer. 3 weeks. Not wanting to push my luck, but of course you would always be welcome to help with the The Raft of the Medusa FAC (cough!). Speak free on it, we want the best article we can get. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Banners

You left three banners on beyond the shadow of a doubt. Would you be willing to explain them on the articles talk page, especially the third? Thanks, Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

(copied from Talk:Beyond the shadow of a doubt)

As far as I know, this is not a legal term in any jurisdiction of which I am aware. The article give no reliable sources. It mentions that it was used in a newspaper 200 years ago, although it does not say in what context. It also mentions that it was used in an opera and a poem. None of these qualify as supporting this term as a legal term. The article is totally unreferenced.

The article misleadingly states: "The term is often, though mistakenly, used interchangeably with beyond a reasonable doubt." This is not true in the UK or the US.

Furthermore, there is no definition in the article of what Beyond the shadow of a doubt means.

Wording such as "many feel" are considered weasel words by wikipedia.

Considering the article is unreferenced and asserts information that is untrue, using weasel wording, it may be original research. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll try to improve with your suggestions in mind Piratejosh85 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

John the bookmaker

I've added some generic examples to see if tactics and pitch conditions are more understandable. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, feel free to provide me with feedback. I am willing to help you out any way I can. Meanwhile, I will place the article on hold. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for spotting the discontinuities and errors that I have made around the place. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to pass it as GA if you have looked through the changes I have made and they are OK with you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's great. Thanks for spending so many hours on it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are so few cricket GAs. This is only the 32nd! No wonder you are working on so many! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I could always do with more copyeditors. Thanks again. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking through your list of article at GAN and I see you added a whole lot more. I will do at least one other, maybe more if I get the hang of cricket. Too tired right now. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: OverClocked ReMix

I believe that I have addressed all of your GA concerns, and the article is ready for another look. --PresN 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And now a third look! --PresN 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the "Good article" assessment of OverClocked ReMix! I put in some effort to improve it, but being only a casual editor, I'm glad Pres came along to fine tune things for the guidelines. I'm all about making the article the best it can be, so I suppose it's now onto improving it enough for an "A" grade down the line! Hopefully you'll check out the free music at OC ReMix sometime. Just posted out 1800th track there, and we've got more than 100 hours of free stuff across all genres. Maybe you'll find something you like. :-) But anyway, as the article hopefully continues to improve, I certainly hope I can ping you for your eagle eye, miss! Your criticisms definitely improved the quality of the article; thanks again! - Liontamer (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Hi, Mattisse. I would be interested in your comments on the possible content changes being discussed at Talk:Che Guevara, for example at this thread about crimes and this thread about executions. Redthoreau asked me to comment, and I'm asking you and Polaris999. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. I am willing to "sort of" be involved in looking that the possible content changes and perhaps commenting. I take the middle road regarding Che. I think that once Castro dies and changes occur, perhaps a greater range of information will be available for building a more realistic picture of Che. The numbers of people he can be documented as having been personally involved in killing seems far less relevant than giving a fuller explanation of his activities and his political philosophies, not only in Cuba but elsewhere. So, thank you for asking me, and I will look at the proposals. Perhaps the article editors are willing to see Che as an actual person, rather than as a cult figure, or as a monster beyond or others. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. Thank you for removing what you objected to in the RFC. Seeing what you removed I was able to understand what it was that you did not like, as I could not figure it out before. The issue of content control in an article residing in the decisions of one or two persons is something that you and I disagree over in the Che article. In a post to me above,[5] you asked me if I would consider entering the discussion on Talk:Che Guevara. However, from my point of view the problem remains about content control in the Che article. Please see these diffs of you posts on the Che talk page as an illustration of how this seems from my point of view as if you are the referee: [6] [7] [8] When I see this is in combination with such comments as these to Redthoreau [9] [10] [11], the impression that the two of you are controlling the content of the article remains. Therefore, I must turn down your offer as, from my point of view, nothing has changed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(I have replied to you on your talk page [12])

Moved from Coppertwig's talk page

Addendum. In thinking more about this over night, I realized this quote from a very recent post from Redthoreau to Polaris999 also reinforces my evaluation of the degree the article was controlled in the past to the exclusion of most input by other editors: I am even willing to cede to your judgment on all matters Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't see how my saying you're welcome to edit the article, and Redthoreau saying to Polaris999 that RT is willing to cede to P9's judgement on all matters, can be seen as an indication of me and Redthoreau owning the article: it looks like the opposite to me. Could you explain? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I just posted to you on my page[13] and got an edit conflict with you! Let me read what you wrote above and respond. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am mixed up here as to which post I am answering so I will answer the one above on this page.

Answer re Redthoreau post

Redthoreau's welcoming Polaris999 to edit an article[14] that Polaris999 created and has by far the greatest number of edits to seems unnecessary in ordinary situations, as on Wikipedia everyone is welcome to edit an article. Therefore, it seems to me to be an implicit acknowledgment that Redhoreau feels he has given the impression of article ownership. And the offer is made some six months(?) after Polaris999 stopped feeling welcome to edit there. To say that he is willing to cede to the judgment of Polaris999 seems to be in recognition that he has been unwilling, for the most part, to do so before. It also clearly only pertains to Polari999, to whom Redthoreau has always been deferential in words, if not in actions. Therefore, other editors are not included. (If this post does not seem that I am assuming good faith, then please forgive my post. I apologize and I will strike it out upon request.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Coppertwig post [15]

I hope my post on my page answered this question.[16] If not, please let me know so I can explain more. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Now I understand what you meant! That does make sense.

However, I don't agree. If someone has been saying that there have been article ownership issues, then obviously there is an impression, in at least one person's mind, of article ownership issues. To acknowledge the existence of this impression (because someone has been saying so) is quite a different thing from acknowledging that there are actually article ownership issues.

Redthoreau made a very generous offer to Polaris999: to cede to Polaris999's judgement on all issues. Editors don't usually do that, but discuss and negotiate when there are disagreements. There's no reason why Redthoreau should make this same offer to any or all other editors. Not doing so is not in any way "owning" the article, but is normal behaviour of editors who work together, discuss and try to find consensus together. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! Rethoreau's post to Polaris999[17] speaks for itself as to the impression he feels he may have given. And so will whatever response he gets from Polaris999 as to whether his offer to cede control is meaningful at this point. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. When I look at those diffs, I just see myself doing the same kinds of things I do on all articles: commenting on article content, saying that I think POV tags should be associated with lists of things needing to be fixed, gently commenting on comments to other editors that I think might be problematic, etc. I don't know what it is about those diffs that you consider to be "content control". The first diff in particular looks to me like just the opposite of content control: I'm telling you that you're free to edit the article. If you tell me specifically what it is that you consider to be problematic in my behaviour, I can consider changing my behaviour. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for you to change your behavior. As you say, this is how you proceed on all articles, determining gently, but nonetheless determining, how things should be. I am just expressing my point of view. To me it gives the distinct feeling that you and Redthoreau own the page (this is just my view), with you as the referee (very gently as you say) and coaching Redthoreau on the side. The two of you appear to agree and alternative views do not seem to make it to the page. Therefore, it is impossible for me to return to that situation; there is not a way I can contribute under such conditions. I hope you do not see this as my not assuming good faith. I am merely reliving my previous experience on Talk:Che Guevara and choosing not to repeat that experience. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I see the pattern: the diffs you provided are generally examples where I'm trying to influence the behaviour of other editors in one way or another. If Redthoreau and I tend to agree on content issues, then we need other editors such as yourself who can bring in other POVs. What if you and I both agree to avoid making any comments that attempt to influence other editors' behaviour or criticize other editors in connection with the Che Guevara article, initially for a one-month trial period to see how things go? Note that there are one or two other new editors, so this may be a good time to be able to get alternative POVs expressed in the article, which may in turn help encourage the new editors to continue.

It's interesting that you see my comments to Redthoreau as "coaching"; I would call them "criticizing", and would stop making that type of comment if we make an agreement such as I suggest above. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)

• Coincidentally, I just posted this to your page: [18]!!!

Later

I understand that you see your input as "criticizing" rather than "coaching" but it has the effect of promoting the inclusion of the POV content that apparently you and Redthoreau both want on the page, and excluding that of other editors. This practice has resulted in massive POV in the Che Guevara article.

Although I remain extremely interested in both Castro and Che, I can not consider being part of an opposing POV team. First, I am not willing to engage in POV arguments. I am a more academic writer and seek to understand, not persuade. I prefer a collaborative approach, with individual POVs not so apparent, and with no one in charge of refereeing, or making the final decisions controlling the article. Second, I would never consider entering dispute resolution over Che Guevara, to which anyone seriously challenging the article's POV would have to resort. However, thank you for asking me to consider your idea. Remember though, my last few posts on this page contributed to my current RFC so I am very unlikely ever to feel free to post on Talk:Che Guevara again! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• My answer to Coppertwig's post[19] on Coppertwig's page.[20]

... or maybe you'd like some other type of agreement. You might want to see if Redthoreau is also willing to agree to some conditions. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm saying this because you mentioned me in the mentorship section of the RfC: you're welcome to ask me for help and advice about any aspect of Wikipedia. I can understand that you might not want my advice, and anyway there are parts of Wikipedia you know more about than I do. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey, do you think you can check over Sacrifice (2008)? I'm going to nominate it for FAC shortly and want to make sure everything is not overlinked. Give your answer here for now because I'm in the process of working on little fixes while I read it one more time and don't want an edit conflict.--WillC 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can look over the article when ever you say it is time. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm done.--WillC 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Sacrifice but I'm going to withdraw the nomination and retire for a bit.--WillC 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me know if and when you need more help. Have a good rest! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remember that. I could be back in a week or so. It determines how long it takes me to get stuff in real life fixed.--WillC 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

Hi - regarding this edit, SandyGeorgia didn't actually remove your comments. Instead she moved them from her outside view section to your response section. Consequently your edit actually duplicated information, which now appears in the subsections on Reply accusations of racism and India and Reply by Mattisse to SandyGeorgia re accusations of racism and India. You may want to tidy this up - I don't mind doing it if you prefer.

Also, my understanding is that the allegation of a racist comment in a diff was made by Casliber, not SandyGeorgia. Have I missed something? Thanks, and sorry for bringing this reminder of the RfC to your talk page. Geometry guy 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused by the page and thought Sandy had removed my comments. I mistakenly though she removed them, as she often removes my comments to another page in other situations. I am sorry. I have a hard time finding my way around that RFC page. My computer is too small, my connection too slow, or something. As far as who made the racial accusations, I assumed it was Sandy as it was over an article/issue with which we were both involved and had interacted before. I never had any involvement with Casliber prior to the MDD article, and I do not know how he got his information against me. However, so many of Casliber's accusations came from situations that involved Sandy, so he may have made the actual accusations. I don't know how he assembled information. Sandy apparently looked through my every edit, back to May of 2006 when I started here. I am confused as to who accused me of what. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restructured the section to eliminate the duplication and (hopefully) clarify the chronology. I hope I did an okay job, and did not make any mistakes. If you have any objections to my change, feel free to revert or modify accordingly. Geometry guy 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am not even going to look at it. I am sure your judgment is better than mine anyway, as to where it should go. I don't even want to think about it. Thank you so very much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The RFC

Hey Mattisse. You have much to give Wikipedia - indeed, you have already given much. I haven't been paying much attention to the RFC after I left a couple of comments, but I did notice that you had me down on a list of those you would consider as mentors, and I did think about it. I thought very seriously about it as I really do think you are a net benefit to the project. But I'm not sure you'd listen to me. I really don't. I don't think you'd ignore my advice, or be confrontational, or do anything really nasty. But I think you get a bit hot headed now and again when something stirs you up, and you'd go off and do your own thing. And I don't think I could deal with that. I wondered, though, if we could talk on-Wiki about some of the problems you've been having. Problems with what may be called the "senior" Wikipedians, such as Sandy.

I think it would be helpful to explore the issues to see where your relationship with her (and any others you'd like to talk about) broke down. To see how much was your fault, how much was her fault, and how much was misunderstanding or circumstances.

But I wouldn't like to do that against a background of confrontation and ill-feeling. I feel it will be a tricky enough route anyway, and will involve a lot of reading, and some communication with Sandy herself. If I'm doing that against a background of you making comments about her, that would just sidetrack discussions, and we wouldn't get anywhere.

Would you be willing to discuss your issues regarding Sandy with me? I could set up a sub-page for us to talk. And would you in the meantime stop making ANY comments on the RFC (I think that RFC is doing more harm than good, and commenting on it is just feeding the bad will). Would you stop making ANY comments (good or bad) about Sandy on any page other than the one I set up where you can talk freely about Sandy. But, until we resolve this issue, would you be able to stop talking about her elsewhere?

Have a think about it and get back to me on my talkpage. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Janszoon voyage of 1606

Thanks for reviewing. I don't know quite what you mean by "removing templates". Cite templates are more or less required under WP:MOS. The article also contain geographical coordinate templates (which you can skip over while reading, but are uselful to some) and quote templates (which are also supported in MOS as a way of making quotes appear correctly).--Grahame (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the geographical coordinates sprinkled through out that I find distracting. I have never seen a GA or FA article with those in the body of the text. I can get another opinion if you like, but I don't think that an article can pass with those embedded in the article body. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's OK, I'll put them in footnotes.--Grahame (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that better, or should I find a way of separating the coords from the cites?--Grahame (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Too tired to answer more tonight. I have asked another editors opinion and tomorrow I should be able to give uou a full answer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)