User talk:Mattisse/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_1) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_3)

Thank you

I want to thank you for the work you've done on the Assyrian genocide. Chaldean 03:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ket people

It appears to be from a book: [1]. BTW, I wanted to give you this:

		The Working (Wo)man's Barnstar
		KarenAnn is awarded this barnstar for her incredible work in the past few days copyediting articles. Good job! —Khoikhoi 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! —Khoikhoi 02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikification of Agios Nikolaos (Sithonia, Greece)

Dear KarenAnn, thank you very much for the wikification of aforementioned article. Greetings, --Christaras A 13:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcement

The problem with Reinforcement is that people keep butchering the article. I hadn't looked at it for a while until your comment turned up on my watchlist, and I was shocked at how the article has been eviscerated. In at least two versions of the page there were complete descriptions of reinforcement schedules. Unless you can suggest some way in which the article could be protected I ain't touching it any more. John FitzGerald 14:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought the remark was directed at me. It's just that this sort of article history seems to be a serious problem here. But maybe I'll work on my patience and then try to fix it up. John FitzGerald 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus has reverted to an earlier version, so that's a start.

Neutral zone

Yeah, that's cool, just a redirect in the talk page that needed deleting, the kind of redirect that's just designed to confuse people. Driller thriller 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Van Uprising

I know that I overreacted and I apologize. I'm concentrating on getting my deletion entry removed now. --Clevelander 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD nomination for Identify software

{{subst:afd1}} on the page you're nominating. This puts the "Nominated for deletion" box on the page. Then you click the red link in that box to go to that article's nomination rationale (it won't exist yet, so you're creating it) and add the tag

{{subst:afd2 | pg=Page Name | text=Your explanation}} to it, plus four tildes (~~~~) to sign the page.

Then you go that day's AfD log (again, there is a link in the box on the page of the article you're nominating) and add the final

{{subst:afd3 | pg=Page Name}} tag, which automatically lists it and any changes made to the justification page (like other people's votes and comments) get updated on the log page automatically. ~ Matticus78 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three different deletion levels:

Speedy for very obviously untenable articles (complete nonsense, ordinary people just writing about themselves, insulting articles, etc.)

Prodding (short for Proposed Deletion]] for uncontroversial deletes (like blatant advertising, hoaxes, crystal balling, etc.)

AfD where the article is questionable but open to debate, or where a "Prod" is done first but later removed by someone else.

What I've learned from watching the newly-created articles list is, when confronted with a suspect article, check if it's a candidate for Speedy Deletion first, then if it fails that, consider Prodding it, and if the Prod gets removed or you think it should be discussed first, only then should it go to AfD. It takes a little time to learn how judge a good level for Speedy, Prod or AfD, but I'm sure you'll soon get a feel for it. ~ Matticus78 19:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba-United States relations

Hi KarenAnn. I wrote the above article a while ago (still unfinished pending further input from other contibutors as I haven't the patience to do it all myself). I've lost track of some of the stuff I used as reference, and I'm now trying to reference the thing. But I'm not very good at that side, how to format footnotes etc. Could you have a look at it please. Your help would be much appreciated.--Zleitzen 22:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking about footnotes and referencing - technical matters, KarenAnn as I don't know how to do it and I'm usless with computers. I only know how to do external links references. I wrote the whole article as it is now some time ago, based largely on what I knew - combining a few pieces of precise info taken from internet sources - with the exeption of the recent relations area which I've left to others to compile.--Zleitzen 23:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Karen Ann, I'll take a look at what you've done and try to replicate it for future sourcing styles on articles.--Zleitzen 23:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salento

Thank you for your last edits at Salento, this beautyful part of Italy; the article now doesn't need further wikify-ing, and I'm going to remove the template that I posted some days ago. Cheers. --Doktor Who 06:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

Thank you for your work on the Cuba page, much appreciated. --Zleitzen 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman-Sheldon syndrome

Hey, sorry. Don't take me too seriously. I've sort of this 'under-dog syndrome.' Anyway, I'm just a student. Moreover, don't feel left out; most people don't know anything about FSS. I just have some friends, and we work on it as a little team of sorts--a surgeon, GP, medical geneticist/internist/cardiologist, and a constant flux of others. My main personal interest is actually pineal body cysts and PTSD.--MI Poling 19:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Schools

Sorry you got bitten by this. Try to be thick-skinned about the criticism. For as long as I've been involved in Wikipedia (late 2003) this has been a contentious issue. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schools as well

I don't delete any schools, since I figure there are lots of youngsters that feel their school is notable...and that way, I eliminate that amount of hassle from those begging me to restore it. Personally, I am kind of torn about the issue. I think that schools are not notable, whereby colleges and universities are. But, since this isn't a paper encyclopedia and server space is cheap, I tend towards inclusionist on schools in general. I don't think I have ever voted for one at an Afd. Now with that said, I have to say I disaprove of spamming for votes, but it is more common than not, and in many cases, users will simply email each other to avoid the overt appearance of spamming...so I'm not sure what can be done about it, in terms of eliminating it completely. It is frowned upon, and if it is severe, a block can be applied. As far as the school you nomiinated for deletion...just walk away. I can post a reminder to those that have been spamming if you wish. --MONGO 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Afd process is the most hostile environment on Wiki. As far as being overeducated...we have plenty of Phd's about...myself I have but a MS in forensic anthropology, which of course, I can't use in the real world anyway. On one article I started (Retreat of glaciers since 1850), there were three doctors, one also in Philiosophy like yourself, another in climate related issues and the third is a glaciologist...a fourth fellow also had an advanced degree. You're just hanging about in the wrong areas! The best way to enjoy wikipedia is to find an area that is benign....looking at my userpage, you'll see the vast majority of stubs I started are related to protected land areas...I rarely have any confrontations there...so when things seem blue, that's where I head off to. Pick a project to join and work on that.--MONGO 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference between our training is that all I ever saw was dead people (sounds like a movie line), least you get to discuss things with some that are living...but forensic anthropology beats forensic pathology...skeletons are much less dramatic than flesh. I would have gone on in my field, but money was an issue, and my mentor (Ellis R. Kerley), told me that jobs were extremely rare...a professorship or even a teaching post is extremely hard to get in the anthropology field. Now, crime labs are always looking for people with advnced degrees in my field, but generally with a doctorate level. Just rememeber that the written word is one of the worst forms of communication, so it only takes a few miscues to get in a fight around these parts. Ha!:) Best wishes.--MONGO 15:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I recommend you put it behind you...it's water under the bridge at this point...stay away from the Afd process if you want happiness at wikipedia...that's what I think.--MONGO 23:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem...yes, I am a native Montanan, but live elsewhere now. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia.--MONGO 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Just create link to a new page (Talk:Fidel Castro/Archive_11) and start the page. I'm afraid we'll have to remove the content manually. But let's wait a bit until there is some consensus on what stays and what's going to be archived. mensch • t 22:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid references

If seen it used in some articles (featured ones as well). I still have to read the whole "manual" page, but I think it's a good idea to convert all duplicate references and point them to the same footnote. Apart from that part I don't think the method differs that much from the one you're using and I'm using, but when dealing with mulitple duplicate footnotes it's the way to go, I think. mensch • t 17:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are called templates. They link to general content of a topic that has many articles about it. They are first made from say Template:Hinduism small. The template wording is then replaced with brackets.

Welcome to WikiProject Hinduism

WikiProject Hinduism — a collaborative effort to improve articles about Hinduism

Discussion board — a page for centralised Hinduism-related discussion

Notice board — contains the latest Hinduism-related announcements

Hindu Wikipedians — Wikipedians who have identified themselves as Hindus

Portal — a portal linking to key Hinduism-related articles, images, and categories

Workgroups — projects with a more specific scopes

For more links, go to the project's navigation template.

--D-Boy 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--D-Boy 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Good to convert duplicate references & point them to the same footnote.

I don't know how to use the hybrid referencing I'm afraid. I'll have to look into it and try it out somewhere first when I have more time. The whole Teemu situation is funny and disturbing at the same time. I think he might get banned or something eventually if he continues his endless attempts to create polls about discussion trees on the Castro talk page. mensch • t 13:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Given the horrendous problems of working on the Fidel Castro page and Teemu's continued activity, would you be interested on working on a sandbox version with Mensch and myself. Away from the main page. We could hone down individual sections, then replace each of them in a careful appropriate manner. --Zleitzen 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See:User:Zleitzen/Fidel Castro Sandbox--Zleitzen 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bats

I saw your name on one of the bat articles, and wonder if you can take a look at The belching bat. Is it the total nonsense I think it is, or is this a nickname for an actual species? Fan-1967 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimi non carborundum

If you wish to start an RFC over the ridiculous accusations of bad faith against you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School, do let me know. Clearly you were acting in good faith, and clearly the article as it stood at the time you nominated it was not a clear keep. I think it is now, because of the ACLU lawsuit, but how were you supposed to anticipate that? A "rescue" of an article in response to AFD is a common and good outcome. Abuse of the nominator is not. - Jmabel | Talk 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is Request For Comment?

I think the problem was the internal spamming done by User:RJHall as noted by User:Metros232 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School.

User:RJHall spammed everyone on the WP:SCH membership list, as he admits and was proud he did so. In his words, after his spamming was noted on the site: "Yup I did. The delete High School discussion is a recurring theme in AfD, and I was hoping to use the latest rallying cry of the deletists." The nomination thus became a political issue with me targeted as one of the "deletists".

Consequently many riled up people voted who did not bother to even look at the article or read the preceding comments and the hysteria escalated.

I think such use of internal spamming to turn a nomination into a polictical issue that targets the person nominating should be firmly discouraged or even forbidden. (I know Wikipedia does not to forbid things.) Things are political enough without systematic methods of encouraging it.

I thought the nominations were for discussion and information-sharing. But I have been intimidated by that experience and will not BE BOLD. KarenAnn 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, this is exactly why you might want to start a request for comment: to turn the community's attention to an instance of bullying, rather than be successfully intimidated. But if you are more comfortable letting the bullies win this one, I certainly won't try to bully you into facing them down! Anyway, if you do want to take some sort of action on this, I promise to back you up. - Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I'd suggest that (unless you feel otherwise) you be clear up front you aren't particularly asking for disciplinary action, but that you would like to air the matter and would like an apology. There are a few details to be careful with:

You need to be clear whose actions you are referring to.
You need to be clear that at least two people have already attempted to address the matter informally, and will sign on to the RFC. (That would presumably be you and Metros232; if he/she won't sign on, and no one else has tried to address the matter, I will approach the people in question and ask them to apologize. If they do, great, that ends it. If not, that gives me standing to sign on.)
You need to indicate what policies or guidelines have been violated (at the very least Wikipedia:Assume good faith, possibly Wikipedia:Spam, but I assume that it is the former that is getting to you).
You need to indicate specific edits that are at issue: e.g. [2].
Also (assuming you agree), be clear that with the ACLU addition the article now passes the notability threshhold, and that you consider this rescue a good outcome as far as the article itself is concerned, but that the issue is not whether the article was rescued, it is that you were accused of acting in bad faith.
You need to brace yourself a bit, because usually when you file an RFC against someone who has been less than civil, they proceed to lash out. Just take it in stride. If they provide further evidence of their incivility in the RFC process, it just makes them look worse.

My own stake in this? 2 things: I don't like to see people bullied, and I think it is part of a climate in parts of Wikipedia that can be especially unwelcoming to women and to certain ethnic groups. Jmabel | Talk 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't want to push you too hard into an RFC, but if you are feeling intimidated out of doing the right thing in the future, it would seem to me to be the way to proceed. I haven't crossed paths with you before, but looking at this user talk page suggests that you are someone we should want here. There are other ways to air the grievance, including a note on the Administrators' notice board, but those won't get the attention of the people whose behavior is bothering you.

I'm at work right now and have given this all the attention I really can during the workday. If you want a place to talk and strategize, you might try the #wikipedia channel on IRC. And if you have focused questions for me, feel free, but it will be a bit until I can properly focus on this. - Jmabel | Talk 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that they were bullying you because you're a woman. But I do think that this adolescent I'm-going-to-be-be-an-alpha-gorilla-someday stuff is more offputting (and more intimidating) to most women than to most men.

IRC is Internet Relay Chat, a live chat program. There are several free IRC software appliances available. The #wikipedia channel on there is Wikipedia's equivalent of hanging around the water cooler.

If you want to move this over to email so that we can speak confidentially, that's fine, I'm reachable from the "email this user" link on my page. I think we've each said enough on the record that no one can complain that we are blindsiding anyone. For that matter, if you want to do this on the phone, contact me by email and I will send you my phone number, which for obvious reasons I will not post online. - Jmabel | Talk 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I take it from your contacting me again on my user talk page rather than by email, you'd rather keep the discussion public and visible, which is fine by me.

Steps:

Read Wikipedia:Requests for comment, especially the part about RFC on users.
Have you yet contacted the relevant parties on their user talk page, tried to work this out, and failed? If not, that's step one. If you feel that you are too intimidated to do this yourself, it can be an outside party, such as me, who does this.
Has at least one other person contacted the relevant parties on their user talk page, tried to work this out, and failed? If not, that's step two. If you don't have someone to do this, I'll do it (unless you had me do the previous step!), though you might see if User:Metros232 is willing to do so, since he or she is already involved.
If that doesn't resolve the matter, you use Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct as a template to prepare a page. You document the offending edits (use [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabic_literature&diff=prev&oldid=64799751 actual diffs, like this), and you document that you have already approached the person or people on their user talk page(s).
Notify the relevant parties on their talk pages, and use the appropriate "add entry" link near the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for comment
Keep your own etiquette good throughout the process. If theirs is bad, let it roll off of you: given that the issue is their conduct, this should not be a big surprise. Just add links to those edits to the list of problems. Yes, this is a bit self-referential, but it's par for the course.

-- Jmabel | Talk 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good questions

I have no idea exactly why trolls hate me so...maybe becuase I tell it as it is and don't bother to sugar coat it for the people that are here for purposes other than to either write an encyclopedia or do the maintenance issues involved in maintaining it. I'm not sure what I can tell you about an Rfc...I think the best thing is to stick to the facts and not be confrontational as much as possible...unless you are personally attack, then you have every right to defend yourself. I think for some things, since you are pretty active on wikipedia, you might wish to consider setting up an email. Not so you can plot strategies in private, but simply becuase conversations that aren't related to writing an encyclopedia are best kept off wiki. Yahoo is a good email, but gmail is better and I would have one that is not your normal email account and is used solely for wikipedia. But that is up to you...best wishes.--MONGO 03:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your delete tag on LeisureTime Network

Hi there, I saw that you added the delete tag to LeisureTime Network. I have since wikified the article and in the process removed the tag after addressing your concerns. If you feel this is incorrect, please contact me on my talk page. --Draicone ^(talk) 11:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on my talk page, it doesn't meet the criteria, but I fixed it while wikifying. --Draicone ^(talk) 06:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your afd help - again!

I refer to your message a dozen times a day. It's been invaluable.

Also, you mentioned watching the newly-created articles list. How do you do that? The closest I can come is watching the Recent changes list. Newly-created articles list sounds really interesting. KarenAnn 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it came in useful - I've seen your name a few times around the AfD pages and the like, so I could already tell you were settling into the process. The newly-created articles list is at Special:Newpages, and can also be accessed via the small "new" link near the top of the recent changes page for quicker access (that's how I usually get to it, anyway - I must get and put some more direct links to useful procedural pages on my own user page, a trick I've seen a lot of other Wiki editors do). You do see a lot odd things pop up there though - some recent articles I sent for speedy deletion included a page about someone's dog (with photos), and a disturbingly detailed article on "poo racing", of all things. Some people just don't get Wikipedia at all... ~ Matticus78 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Latest Novel and importance

Hi! I've started up the talk page on the My Latest Novel article, with some reasons why I think it meets "importance" criteria. But I welcome debate in the issue. I have no vested interest. --Wastekiller 16:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no further imput on this since I put forward my arguments for the inclusion of this article, so I've removed this tag. If you still feel that this article does not meet importance criteria, please put it back and enter your reasons on the discussion page. Thanks. --Wastekiller 12:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan conference

Found that by typing "Stefan University" into Google and looking at the first hits not from the "university" itself or from Wikipedia mirrors. Phr (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Patrolled edit

Help:Patrolled edit - do you know anything about this aspect of Recent Changes? I read it but don't understand it. (I'm not a computer person.) KarenAnn 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's a feature in the MediaWiki software (the server-side set of programs that run Wikipedia and all other wiki-based sites) that allows users to mark the latest change to a page as a good one (i.e. not vandalism), making things a little easier for fellow Recent Changes patrollers since it's been confirmed that an edit has already been reviewed and approved, so they don't need to look at it again. However, this is entirely a moot point: while the feature is available in the software, it hasn't been implemented on Wikipedia itself (I suppose because it'd be too easy to abuse if left open for any user to okay a change, and/or there aren't enough Administrators (966 at last count) for such a busy site to make it work if it were restricted to Administrator users only). It might be something to look out for in the future, but I can't see it working well on the site as it currently stands. ~Matticus ^T_C 15:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change of "vote on AfD

Just wanted to let you know about this activity that was targeted against your "vote" on the Benefiber article. I reverted and added the below to the discussion. --Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a users "vote" from Speedy Delete to Keep is EXTREAMLY poor form! Especially when the change is by the article's author! [3] Reverted the page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaerops wetmorei

Wonder if you might have more information on this species. It is listed in the list of mammals of India probably from the Andaman or Nicobar Islands. But the article doesn't seem to mention this in the distribution range. Thanks. Shyamal 03:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I'm not a bat expert. In wikifying old articles, I did some bat articles to get them out of the wikify bin. The information in Megaerops wetmorei was mixed in with Macroglossus so I made a new article out of what was there, hoping someone knowledgable would fix it up

You mention the list of mammals of India. I didn't know about that list. I have also wikified Aethalops, Chironax and Megaerops because I came across them. I wish someone who knows about the subject would look over what I did to make sure I didn't make bad mistakes.

All the bats I have come across are listed on the Megabat list. You might look there and see if you can find some names of editors who know more, as there seems to be a bat projext. I recomment looking on the lists on the Megabat page.

Someone even consulted me about the The belching bat, thinking I was a bat expert! Even though I am not, I could tell that was a hoax!

Hope this helps. KarenAnn 10:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent-Meridian High School

I'm being heavily pressured to do an rfc re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School as many people were upset by it. Do you have an email address so you and I could come to some resolution? I use a Yahoo email because so many people want to discuss things less publically. Maybe you could temporarily use that sort of email so we could discuss this issue.

Actually, based on the last message I received from you, I don't think I want to pursue any further discussion of this issue. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.