User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-M

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Fundamentalism#Non-religious "fundamentalism"

Orthodoxy#Critical uses

Orthopraxy = ad captandum vulgaris ("capture the will of the crowd")?

User:Tenmei/Sandbox-L

Doctrine of mental reservation

Model?

• User:Mattisse/Plan
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring

wrong

Archive 26

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Restraint

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Warning

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

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

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

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

Insect projects

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

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

)

No, you simply click on the history and then the helpful "Revision History Statistics" tool. Something which you know about and have used in the past.[4]. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I have never looked at your user page. But I will try to remember and avoid you and your past account, as apparently you consider yourself "in conflict" with me. I have been told that it is important to read the article talk page. Where is there a concise "revision history" than does not entail going back through several years worth of revisions? You pointed to this[5] above, but going through that takes forever. —mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I simply don't believe you don't know how to do this, but nonetheless.......1. on any page click 'history' that's at the top between 'edit this page' and 'watch'. Hopefully this will be a familiar page. This is what the history page of today featured article looks like [6]. A couple of lines above the big 'compare revisions' button is a line that starts with External tools: Revision history statistics. 2. If you click on that link It should be pretty clear who the principle editors are. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Warning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Techniques to reduce stress:

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

...

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

And User:Mattisse/Plan#Consequences_for_failure_to_adhere_to_plan:

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

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

Punishments:

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

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

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#George Eliot

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to propose that My Plan be modified to take into account what ArbCom currently sees as my problems. Much of the plan concerns behaviors I no longer engage in. Making off-the-cuff comments to posters on my talk page regarding dyk, and thinking out loud to my mentors are not problems the arbs mention as major. If these sorts of complaints are encouraged on the "alerts" page, that page will soon degenerate into the "circus" and/or "train wreck" that the Arbitration and Clarification did because of the volume of trivial, misleading complaints made there. Minor, frivolous complaints, or complaints that target human venting in frustration that are not uncivil or personal attacks, out-of-date complains, voluminous, wordy complaints, or complaints by editors who are not involved in the incident but are merely following my contributions and talk page looking for incidents to report should be discouraged. The complaints should be by stake holders, not the police. Further, as they did in the Arbitration, in the Clarification arbs recognize that much of the complaining about me is frivolous or unwarranted or just plain wrong. e.g.[9] Please, let us concentrate on what is important and recognize that I am fallible but trying. At a time when the subject is whether or not I will be banned from FAC, DYK etc., statements of ventilation by me made in personal contexts should not be help against me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee,

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

Original Annoucement

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Arbcom motion

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

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

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

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Re: Removing citation tags

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

When you did this:[10] you removed the "citation needed" tag. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#ARA Uruguay

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

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

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

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

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Alexander VI

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

Who sacrificed quiet to hatred, with a warrior heart,

who did not stop at quarrels, struggles and slaughters,

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

thy supreme pontiff Alexander, oh, capital Rome.

Thou, prelates of Erebus and Heaven, close thy doors

and prohibit the Soul from entering thy sites.

He would uproar the peace of Styx and disturb Avernus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive 27

User talk:Mattisse#Collaborative spirit on 2010 Haiti earthquake

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

"It isn't wrong to become involved in articles, as long as you are able to step back to see the encyclopedic perspective, and avoid personalizing disagreements. You've contributed ... primarily with the needs of the encyclopedia in mind" .... --Geometry guy 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mattisse#leading to ban

"Mattisse, .... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!)." --RegentsPark 23:44, 17 January 2010

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

<IMPORTANT>It is not dangerous to comment; problems arise when you act in haste .... time to think about the matter with more perspective .... --Geometry guy 00:11, 18 January 2010

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

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

User:Mattisse#please explain

"... her original comment was inappropriate, and that her later actions and comments were over-reaction, and that this is the danger zone for her. When angry and frustrated like this, the most appropriate solution is to log off and cool down. Easier said than done - but it has to be done .... --SilkTork 16:09, 18 January 2010

User:Mattisse#Reply

"... accusations of article ownership are personalizations of disagreements .... Your comment about a lead editor having a view which you should let prevail is contrary to this spirit, and wishing to withdraw comments and contributions in protest or frustration is inappropriate behaviour. Good conduct aims for collaboration, mutual understanding, and disengagement from disputes; it does not include posts of a rhetorical nature which aim to be "effective" at seeking attention or winning an argument .... --Geometry guy 16:06, 19 January 2010

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

2+2

• At User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Warning, you wrote, "I should add that Mattisse is proud of her accomplishments on wikipedia - do we want to kill that pride?" --RegentsPark 23:08, 8 December 2009

A quotation which arguably expresses the same thing, but in different words: "A mentor is someone who allows you to see the hope inside yourself." – Oprah Winfrey

• At User:Mattisse#leading to ban, you wrote, "Mattisse, .... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!)." --RegentsPark 23:44, 17 January 2010

Link to Throw out the baby with the bath water which explains the early 16th century derivation of this contemporary idiomatic expression. Last October, I worked on developing this minor article as an exercise to help me work through my thinking about one of the core issues I expected to encounter in mentorship. Among many other lessons learned the hard way, I've found that it makes sense to try to plan several steps in advance.

The concept is examined from another perspective in this excerpt from a newspaper chess column:

"The close-at-hand problem is always the one ... [to] take care of before anything else, but the solution should include what you are committing yourself to over the long haul.

"It is altogether too easy to let the burden of the immediate problem obliterate other considerations from your thinking and to jump at what promises to be a quick fix. What often happens is that you have not achieved a long-range success but only converted one difficulty into another perhaps less obvious but no less onerous one." -- Robert Byrne. "Pastimes; Chess," New York Times. December 24, 1989.