User talk:Mattisse/Archive 24

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_23) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_25)

GAR of Exploration of Jupiter

Exploration of Jupiter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Talk:Shanhua Temple

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Talk:Shanhua Temple.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm a Wikistalker

I saw you were reviewing my article, which made me very glad. :) But then a review never appeared, and it made me very sad. :( I sat around for a few hours editing random pages and waiting for a review to appear. But it never did. Woe is me! Shii (tock) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which article is yours? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Paging you to Talk:Living River Siam, just a few things left Shii (tock) 22:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Ping me when you are done. —mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have any objection to my responses (2) and (1) then I'm pretty much done. Thanks for your help! Shii (tock) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

disingenuous

..is a fightin' word. Has that ad hominem kinda odor... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think someone is stalking me. That was one, sole, edit to an article that was not at FAR. So what was the point of the comment? The discussion is about articles at FAR. So what did that one edit prove? You tell me. —mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if it means anything or not. And this may sound shocking, but I doubt it matters. First of all, a long time ago I myself used to comb through peoples' contribs looking for evidence when I disagreed with them. I don't do it now, but only because I've become very very lazy, or perhaps thge laziness is actually residue from my period of burnout. Either way, I don't do it now, but I think it's common and even normal (though perhaps a bit confrontational, in some contexts). Secondly, if I could summarize absolutely everything that I have ever said to you about on-wiki interactions, it would be this: "Learn not to give a crap." Let it go. Water of a duck's back. It washes off. And soon. I learned this lesson out of context... many years ago a mother of several children told me she'd been (very literally) pooped and peed on more than a few times. I said "Wow, that's disgusting". She said, "You know, one thing I've learned after years of being a mother — poop just washes off." :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't image stalking someone. And I am surprised you did it. Recently someone told me to post on an article talk page, but when I refused to do it, retribution followed, nonetheless, when that person insisted on posting on my behalf. Retribution not only on my talk page, but under my posts on the talk pages of others not even involved! Some editors clearly have nothing else to do but follow me around! This place is really an interpersonal circus; the encyclopedia is just an excuse for everyone to ego bash and post sweet nothings on favorite other's pages. You are one of the few editors I respect, and whose view I value, despite what I am saying here. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! If you respect me, then you are one of the few who do! I'm sorta two-dimensional—sometimes I channel User:Geometry guy, but more often than not I represent a faint, faded echo of the legend that is User:Malleus Fatuorum. ;-) But back to the point... ummm... I'm not sure my limited attention span enables me to follow that whole retribution anecdote, but.... uh... I dunno. If someone came at my door calling me an idiot, I'd mention WP:DENY then very studiously ignore him or her. And continue to do so, no matter what.... I get very very involved and excited in debates sometimes, but I am almost always involved in the topic rather than the person. With extremely few exceptions. I'm not perfect. yet. But anyhow. WP:DENY. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, in the (I hope unlikely) event that you are actually implying that I stalked you to James Joyce, I hope that your mentors will step in and remind you of 1) the terms of your ArbCom, 2) how to find articestats on that article where you can review my long history with that article, and 3) how to review the articlehistory and diffs to see just how long I've had it watchlisted (Dec 2006 FYI). Whether at FAR or not, I thought it to be unnecessary tagging of an FA, of which I follow quite a few. It was an example of the kinds of issues being discussed at FAR; please refrain from personalizing issues, and when you make statements about things like stalking, please consider reviewing the history of the article first, lest you breach AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)t

eh, we're discussing. let's not butt heads.... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that SandyGeorgia must remove my perfectly legitimate post to her page. Unnecessarily POINTy, in my opinion. —mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your page IS a little more public than a confessional, methinks! Judging from events!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) maybe it was pointy, I dunno, but also yawn-worthy. I am so used to folks getting irritated at each other on-wiki that.. it kinda... washes off... so...maybe... it.. should... wash off... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it? In real life this quality of mine made me a lot of money but here it is merely a curiosity that I garner so much attention. —mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent, free the indentured colons of Wikipedia) <shrug> Wikipedia is its own weird world. Just shrug it off. Or rather, shrug the people off. I actually wish I could shrug off the issues; as time goes on, I'm becoming more apathetic.... Ling.Nut (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I am becoming more apathetic also. I have no real interest here anymore. There is nothing I care about. That is a loss, but so be it. I figure it happens to everyone, as the "lifespan" here seems to be around three years. —mattisse (Talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would like to actually edit articles more. I may do so. I enjoy making awards and images, though it is very, very time-consuming. I am considering putting the "does not want to be an admin" ubox back on my bio page though. Blech. Argue this, argue that, blah blah blah. I weary myself nearly as much as others weary me. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the way to go. Nothing good comes from the grunt work, except abuse. Writing articles is the fun. And if I do anything more here, that will be it. P.S. Never trust anyone who does a lot of sighing. (I know that from real life.) —mattisse (Talk)

What can i say? I love the concept of Wikipedia. It's the reality that sorta has a mildly unpleasant odor. But then again, that describes most (but not all) of reality. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the reviewing/copy editing business that has the "unpleasant order" you describe. The article writing is enjoyable. I think I will get out of the grunt work business, stop worring abot the "quality" of wikipedia, and just do my own thing writing articles thaat I feel like doing, without trying to grab "stars" and "awards". That is the only chance I see of regaining any pleasure and escaping the uglines. —mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Ugh, too many colons.) Er, I am still looking for the fabled balance that leads to happiness. Article work often involves flying solo, which can get lonely after a while... But if content review is the locus of most of your unhappiness, then perhaps article work is the way to go. Prob is, content review involves much more interaction with others. Interaction with others is where we all wanna find that Cheers-like atmosphere. So perhaps (I think) the best way to go may be to find a Wikiproject in an interesting area & that has some active & friendly members, make friends with the latter and do content work in collaboration with them. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wise words Ling.Nut. I'd have left wikipedia some time ago without the help and support of the WP:GM project. Even then, as you say, article work can be a pretty lonely furrow to plough, so I think it's all about getting the balance right between doing what you want to do and helping others. My feeling is that Mattisse sometimes hasn't been selfish enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You've spent a lot of time reviewing/copyediting Mattisse, perhaps too much relative to spending time on those topics that genuinely interest you. Perhaps you're just feeling the effects of that imbalance right now. Reviewing in particular is pretty thankless, and there's no real sense of achievement, no matter how well you do it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Ling.Nut and Malleus have just said. Do what you enjoy doing rather than what you feel you ought to be doing. Associate with people who share your interests or whose company you find enjoyable for personal reasons, and scrforget the politics. "My feeling is that Mattisse sometimes hasn't been selfish enough" looks like a very good diagnosis. --Philcha (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that. When trying to put Wikipedia to rights got too tedious around the start of this year I turned to Wikisloth and took the Darwin anniversary opportunity to have fun writing a few minor articles, one of which turned out rather better than expected. Your help with the struggle to get that whimsy through FAC is hugely appreciated, hence the award below. However, the same goes for you: it's easy to get sucked into "doing your duty", but that's only worth doing if you find it rewarding. Fun comes first! . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is all very well, but can anyone honestly say that for their next GAN, they don't wish Mattisse was there to review it? (just speaking up for those of us that would feel the lack of such great reviewers!)YobMod 00:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I fear that GA standards are too low. But you are very kind. Unfortunately, Ga supports the propagation of psychological inventions publicized by one man. The article in question is a fork at best. But, hey, anything on pop culture gets a free pass. I give up on the task of giving psychiatry/psychology any credibility on Wikipedia. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I could hardly disagree with you more Mattisse; all psychological/psychiatric theories (yes, I do understand the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists) are the work of one man, like my all-time favourite cognitive dissonance. How many men were involved in the development of transactional analysis? How many men was Freud, Jung, or Adler? GA standards are neither "too low" nor too high, they simply represent a pragmatic attempt to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. Pragmatism has its limits, which are far short of perfection, admittedly.--Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. So goes my faith in humankind and in GA. Feel free and have at it. Wreck what you will. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, I should withdraw my article, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, which has been waiting a month at GAN, from it because it is worthless?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Another political article by you! Actually, I had not noticed it as I am basically getting out of the business of reviewing GA articles. I hope you are not going to guilt-trip me into doing it. You know I am already suspicious of you, as I suspect you are either 21 or 67 years old and I cannot tell which. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we worry too much about other people's stuff. nvm, I don't think quality control in Wikipedia is very relevant atm or in the near future, as regards to articles or other stuff like flagrant POV pushing. If I get banned or fired, too bad, I'm not here to toe the line and get a 100% approval rating for being irrelevant. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. What does "nvm" and "atm" mean? I am 100% behind your mode of operation. —mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

nvm="never mind"; atm="at the moment". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm 46. (don't be fooled by my concert photos). This one was started before the Senate article, but has been slower to turn out. I wasn't hoping to get you to do it, but was hoping one of the other readers of your page would get interested. It is the final segment in my Nixon series, though I may reconsider on Helen Douglas once the new bio of her comes out in November. Khrushchev is next. Just have to get up the energy to sit down to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha 46, I would have guessed that age next, except maybe 38 instead (fooled by your concert photos). Do you promise that this is the final of your Nixon series? —mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, maybe Douglas, but that has to await the new book. Really, there isn't anything more to write about. It is his early career that interests me. There isn't enough material about his '48 campaign to do a FA about, maybe enough for a short GA, but aside from those two, I don't have anything more to say about Nixon. Besides, Khrushchev is going to be a difficult article, then I have promised Ssilvers to improve Ruddigore.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Equivocating already? Besides, I am finding Khrushchev quite interesting. Had a discussion with my brother who has a very poor view of Khrushchev. But he did point out, contrary to his POV, that Castro and Khrushchev got along very well. Like minds in many ways. —mattisse (Talk) 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I've resumed work on Khrushchev, though I will have a military history buff look over the Great Patriotic War section when I've done with it. Ruddigore will be part of the G&S Wikiproject (I'm not a member of any wikiproject), and the timing of bringing it to FAC will depend on how people are doing with others of the Savoy Operas (at one time I was interested in G&S though it has probably been 15 years since I have been to one).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Fertilisation of Orchids Award
		Thanks ever so much for slogging away to bring a whimsical sketch up to FA standard. Remember to have fun! dave souza, talk 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a pleasure to work on that article. There are few articles I have enjoyed as much. Also, you are a great model for how to compromise when that is for the good of the article but also to stand firm when needed to retain its beauty and spirit. —mattisse (Talk) 12:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it overall! As it happens, I don't want to pester you or distract you from having fun, and hesitated to mention this, but I've been playing in my sandbox and have now put Explanation of the mechanism – suggestion up for discussion at the article talk page. It gives a bit more detail, but risks getting too technical. Anyway, don't worry about it, will think it over cautiously before doing anything. . dave souza, talk 12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I only want to make changes that genuinely clarify the article, and if in doubt will leave it alone. As you suggest, the exercise may come in useful in trying to improve other articles which I find pretty impenetrable, but then I'm not an expert about botany. If you could leave Coral Reefs aside for a while, it needs a going over to improve the secondary sources. I've obtained Charles Darwin, Geologist by Sandra Herbert, but haven't had much time to read it yet. So, my aim is to work more on that article soon, but not yet. Perhaps I should remove it from the GA queue. . dave souza, talk 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon! Hamiltonstone has started the GAR, so will drop other things and try to use the new source as appropriate to help respond to questions. Any further comments or questions, such as things that need explained, will be welcome. Thanks again for your help, dave souza, talk 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, a review will be useful and I can try to help out. I was looking at it more from the perspective of a potential FA. Is that your ultimate goal? —mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it through GA, all rather sudden! Yes, guess duty to the year of our Darwin makes it worth going for FA, will try to catch up with my reading over the next week, see if there's anything I want to review and then put it forward. Any assistance greatly welcomed! dave souza, talk 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashokan Edicts (Delhi)

Hi! Matisse,

It is quite some time since I requested you for help, after the Chitradurga Fort article was successfully nominated by you on DYK. I have another request for you to please see this history related article User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Ashokan Edicts (Delhi) for nomination on DYK, if you find it interesting. You are free to edit it as necessary to remove any oddities or close paraphrasing. Also, can I post the article Chitradurga Fort for GA upgrade? Thanks. --Nvvchar (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Curry

Hello Mattisse. With regard to this edit on the Tamil language article, the dictionary does actually say the word is from Tamil or from a cognate word in another Dravidian language. The online interface to their dictionary only displays the first entry (a verb) by default - you need to click through to the second entry. I've therefore taken out your tag - I hope this is OK. Please feel free to re-insert it if I misunderstood your point. -- Arvind (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will take your word for it, though I did search around to make sure it wasn't there. But if you say so, ok. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to the OED, which is quite unambiguous. I hope that's better. --Arvind (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sz deadlink

Hi Matisse, I just saw that you added a deadlink marker to the NICE guidelines webpage on the schizophrenia article. I did a little poking around, and it looks like the guidelines were updated in February, 2009, but when I try to click on the links, the pdf causes my computer to freeze up. The non-pdf part of the page is here: [1] and I think the one that we want is the NICE guidelines updated here: [2] but since I can't make the pdf work, I can't actually read it over to verify that this update hasn't changed the content in such a way that this is no longer a valid reference. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't get the pdf to open either. It is just an empty link. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you have to click one more link beyond that... on that page, it only gives you the link to the pdf and tells you to make sure you have acrobat. Here's the link directly to the pdf: [3]. On my computer, it gets about halfway through downloading and then hangs, so don't click that link if you're in the middle of something important(!). Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That link is an empty link for me. It returns a blank page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... and the other one too? Curiouser and curiouser. Edhubbard (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This one is not blank: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG82 But that is the one you wanted to verify the text of, right? By looking at the pdf? This one is blank: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG82FullGuideline.pdf —mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the second one, with the pdf in the title is the one that keeps hanging for me. It opens part way, and then stops. You might be having a version of the same problem I am, but even worse. I can see that it's not completely blank when I try to open it, but it won't open all the way... what version of Acrobat do you have? I have Reader 8. In any case, NICE needs to make these things more readable. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the plug in for Firefox 3.0.13. It updates automatically so I am sure it is Reader 8. I don't normally have any problems opening a pdf. —mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, so I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 normally, but based on your comment, I just tried it with IE (I hate to do that!) and it seems to work in IE. So, perhaps this is a compatibility issue with Firefox that NICE hasn't tested? Not nice NICE. Can you let me know if it works for you? I'm going to start looking to see if the pdf still contains the relevant info. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I have not upgraded to Firefox 3.5 is that I am concerned that some of my add-ons (upon which I depend) won't work. Have you had any trouble? I tried the link in my IE 8 (I believe) and it is still a blank page. Don't know what to think. —mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 normally, but based on your comment, I just tried it with IE (I hate to do that!) and it seems to work in IE. So, perhaps this is a compatibility issue with Firefox that NICE hasn't tested? Not nice NICE. Can you let me know if it works for you? I'm going to start looking to see if the pdf still contains the relevant info. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I have not upgraded to Firefox 3.5 is that I am concerned that some of my add-ons (upon which I depend) won't work. Have you had any trouble? I tried the link in my IE 8 (I believe) and it is still a blank page. Don't know what to think. —mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was an early adopter for FF 3.5, and it did break a couple of things (google gears being the most notable for me) but they're up to 3.5.2 now and they seem to have worked that out. So, for most things FF 3.5 seems pretty good now. But, if you have specific add-ons, I wouldn't want to say something that wouldn't be true for that add-on.

As for this crazy pdf, I am reading it over, and they do seem to have changed some things from the old guidelines. Relevant to first-line care (since that was the first place you noted the deadlink), they say this:

6.10 From evidence to recommendations.

In the previous guideline (which incorporated the recommendations from the NICE technology appraisal of second-generation antipsychotics, NICE, 2002), in some situations, SGAs were recommended as first-line treatment, primarily because they were thought to carry a lower potential risk of EPS. However, evidence from the updated systematic reviews of clinical evidence presented in this chapter, particularly with regard to other adverse effects such as metabolic disturbance, together with new evidence from effectiveness (pragmatic) trials suggest that choosing the most appropriate drug and formulation for an individual may be more important than the drug group." (p. 130).

So, it seems that some things might have changed with the addition of new evidence, and it might be worth figuring out how to get this new information incorporated into the article, or at least to temper conclusions that have been superseded by new evidence. I'll take a look through this thing, but it's 399 pages long, and comes in at 3.16 MB, so a sizeable document. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is rather vague and disheartening. It is rather like antidepressants. The end of the road seems to have been reached there and we are in need a new concept, or to reach back further in the causal chain to wherever neurotransmitters arise, instead of influencing them directly. —mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we're reaching a sort of plateau with what the meds can currently do. My fiancee is a sz researcher (post-doc with Stephan Heckers at Vanderbilt Psychiatry [4]) and one of the things that seems to be the wave of the future is early detection and a sort of "pre-habilitation", even prior to the first episode, since after even a single episode, patients rarely, if ever, attain their pre-morbid state. So, early markers, endophenotypes, etc, etc are becoming the hot topics, for example at SOBP. Of course, this is all complicated by the fact that the genetics people have turned up at least a dozen genes. I did see part of a great symposium at SFN about a year and a half ago where they talked about how the genes link up to pathways, and there might be some specific targets there. So, I'm optimistic about the long-term future, but in the short-term, I agree that this line of treatment is reaching the limits of where we can hope to go... of course, this is still better than just 100 years ago. Edhubbard (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Long-term optimism yes. But having received the Schizophrenia Bulletin since the 1970s I think perhaps that will be in the twilight of my lifetime, if then. —mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Expert syndrome?

Hi, Mattisse. I think your comments at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 and the responses they received may be an example of the difficulties experts in a subject experience at WP. The upside is your thorough knowledge of the subject area, but one of the downsides is excessive concentration on the way in which experts analyse the topic, when there may be other ways of looking at it - a good example of this might be Jesus, about whom theologians, textual critics and historians of 1st century Judea would all adopt very different perspectives. Münchausen by Internet may not deserve its own entry in DSM, since (from the point of this very non-expert) it looks like the core behaviours and causes are standard Münchausen's. However the way in which it seems to play out on the Internet appears to be distinctive and to have caught some attention, at least for a while. I've added my name to the list of willing reviewers if it's re-nominated, and if I wind up reviewing the article and not crushed in the January-sales rush, I hope I could ask your advice on the technical aspects. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to a popular culture article being written that does not mislead people into thinking it is a medical diagnosis. Then the article should follow the standard polices/guidelines regarding WP:V and WP:OR. Supporting WP:RS should be found for the term, so that Wikipedia is not pushing one man's theory. Articles on the general culture of the internet should not be used by the article's editor to put together the editor's view of how Münchausen by Internet operates per WP:SYN. The very fact Münchausen by Internet is capitalized as it is, instead of Münchausen by internet as standard terminology for diagnoses dictates, shows it is not a diagnostic term commonly used in the field. Write it as a pop culture article and drop the medical/scientific pretensions, unless support for this angle can be found. And drop the OR speculations and enhancements.

Münchausen by Internet is a term used to classify behavior patterns that mirror elements of factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy expressed primarily through internet communications such as chat rooms, message boards, and Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

Does Feldman mention message boards, IRC etc.? He is concerned about on-line support groups for health issues only.[5] I don't think Feldman is into the other behaviors mentioned farther down, such as stalking. Stalking has little to do with the motivations behind Factitious disorders and therefore, by analogy, presumably behind Münchausen by Internet. The editor has interjected OR and this must be carefully checked. Articles that mention problems that "sound" like they are talking about Münchausen by Internet but do not mention the "diagnosis" of Münchausen by Internet should not be used to support the article editor's thesis that these are the same. The article is OR the way it is written now. You need someone besides Feldman validating the term, not just someone mentioning Feldman and his term. Wikipedia will become a major vehicle to push Feldman and his term.[6] If you check this article as carefully as you checked the article by Malleus you reviewed, you should have no problem, and make sure the statements are supported with no weasel words. Who uses this term to "classify behaviors", for what purpose and under what conditions? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom mentors, is this the direction you envisioned your task going? I did not.

Munchausen by Internet will not be re-nominated for GA, at least not by me. That is unfortunate, but it is a simple issue of economics: it is not worth it to deal with Mattisse's irrelevant accusations, tangential arguments, and bizarre claims. Had Mattisse access to the sources, I hope that 99% of her questions and complaints would be answered. Anyone who wants copies of the sources, email me and I'll attach them to a reply.

You defer to her as an expert, Philcha, after she exhibits an astonishing misunderstanding of GA criteria in the GAR. Such gentleness she receives from her trusted friends. If only we could all treat each other that way. If only true experts in the field could be as understanding and nurturing where articles need to be improved. Someone who is so easily influenced or impressed with a user that has very recently displayed some alarming confusion should not be performing a GA review. Malleus passed it to Ling.Nut, who passed it to Philcha. GA renomination, in this climate, is not a wise decision, despite my confidence that the article--needing improvements though it may--meets basic GA criteria.

As ever, I will remain interested in improving the article. I am wholly disinterested in another round of argument and drama with Mattisse. GA process fail. ArbCom fail. Mattisse win. Everyone goes home happy. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mon3, I am merely concerned about the encyclopedia. It is not for us to write articles on novel topics that are "similar to the discovery of a new organism", as you say you are doing. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not for the synthesis of new information. I suggest you recast the article per Malleus's comments on the article talk page and clear up what he called the article's "identity crisis." Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pass anything on to anyone. What I said was that if the article was renominated at GAN and not picked up quickly then I would undertake to do the review. It's my belief from my own experience that Philcha would do a fine job, very likely better than I would have done, and the article would be significantly improved in the the process, so it would be disappointing if it were not renominated. Re your general comments, I think the tenor of the whole discussion surrounding this review started off badly because of the poor decision made by the original reviewer to (effectively) quickfail the article, and has gradually become less and less helpful. I broadly agree with the position that Mattisse has espoused, although I do regret thst she was unable to strike a less gladiatorial tone. The poor experiences some others of us have had with that reviewer earlier also didn't help in producing a more collegial atmosphere, and I'm perhaps as much to blame as anyone for that. Perhaps one day I'll be perfect, but I've still got a ways to go. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours since I offered to send anyone interested the sources cited in the article through email. Although Philcha, Ling.Nut, Mattisse, and Malleus have been active during that time, no one has taken me up on it, especially Mattisse. Yes, Mattisse, Feldman does mention IRC, message boards, and chat rooms. He actually employs the term "Usenet boards" but someone else thought that was dated when I put that in the article and changed it. Why would you believe me here, when you certainly do not believe the article? Wouldn't having the sources answer your questions?

I don't know how to express my disappointment in this ArbCom mentor process. It seems I would basically have to behave like Mattisse to get you folks to do your jobs. Instead, I disengage, remark only about content, refuse to rise to the accusations that I'm synthesizing information and conducting original research, while Mattisse defends an indefensible and astonishingly incompetent GA review. Seriously, is decency so foreign to Wikipedia? I am refusing to renominate the GA, not because I don't think the article does not meet the criteria, but because of the stress and headache I will go through while she rambles on, displaying a complete lack of understanding for core Wikipedia policies. I'm seriously considering abandoning review processes altogether, which is unfortunate because I really would like the articles I write to be the best they can be. Is your desire to be able to end your posts with winky-faces what compels you to be impotent? Do I have to bring out more effective language and say that Mattisse is full of neurotic bullshit, and scream like a mentally imbalanced 14-year-old? Or is this the honest to God best you folks can do? --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POT evidently applies, I suggest that you strike these aggressive and uncivil assertions. A bit more patience and a suitable plea to uninvolved editors is more likely to be succeed than this evidently unproductive name-calling. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So yes, it is that sort of language that earns attention. Those who wish to exist outside of this culture are unto themselves, apparently. Someone who creates a melodramatic scene merely hinted at by my previous post makes people uncomfortable, but the respectful decency I employ on a regular basis gives others the impression that things are swell. Mattisse's behavior, obviously, plays no part in this which I find perverse. Conflict forces value reassessment, as is illustrated in many articles on this website, some of which I have written. My passivity and respectfulness has not accomplished that. I am challenging this wiki-culture that follows such a status-quo. I heartily dislike using hurtful language, but it is the equivalent to laying down in front of the Food and Drug Administration in a public die-in to get arrested in front of the media. If I have to start peppering my posts with "fuck" and start ranting about conspiracy, might that inspire action as well? How about if her mentors start addressing her behavior so articles can be improved? --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I never saw your posts about sending sources etc. I un-volunteered my help 'cause I'm busy and 'cause Philcha would do as well or better than i could. But I re-volunteer. Go ahead and send me those sources, if you want, although I believe there is no need to do so, because I believe your contributions are completely in order and above reproach. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom mentor]/adviser process is working well, from my point of view, and over time I have received honest and timely advice from my advisers. Regarding your article, I have given my opinion at GAR and on the article talk page (where I understood Geometry guy to say comments should go), which I am allowed to do. You are free to ignore my comments, or to argue against them on the article talk page. It is unclear what you are expecting of me now. I never indicated any interest in rewriting the article or in reviewing it for a second GAN. Perhaps those who offered to review your article, should you renominate it, will be interested in your materials. I agree the article would emerge improved from a renomination should Philcha or Malleus do the review. If you want to refuse to renominate the article, then that is up to you. I do ask that you stop repeatedly posting disparaging remarks about me and my mentoring/advising process on my talk page. Regarding, —mattisse (Talk) 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I think it's time to put this incident behind you - as I've noticed to-day, you have some new interests that I hope will give you more enjoyment.--Philcha (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I think that applies to everyone else too. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have had new interests all along and would prefer to have this matter dropped. —mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• You have expressed interest in leaving this behind. I think it would help right now. Please read. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have left it behind. I have not engaged further in the matter. This is not something I am thinking about anymore and have moved on to other things. So I would appreciate your dropping the matter also. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Halofolliculina corallasia

Hi, Mattisse. I start work on a "new" phylum knowing nothing about it, it's what all the best editors do :-) Re DYK, do you already have a hook in mind? I usually start work on a new subject by doing a search and listing prominsing sources at the article's Talk page (did I mention I know nothing?), so I'll start now. I can really only give this the week or so it will take to get it ready for DYK, as I have to finish Bryozoa before I forget how these work (incidentally, I know nothing), get Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets through GA review (I hope!) and finish GA reviews I'm doing on 4 articles. --Philcha (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, could you not have picked a more obscure subject? Scientists appear to know less than the general public realise about biology - as I've realised when working on Annelida (!) and Bryozoa, and now about a protozoan species. All the sources about Halofolliculina corallasia are by various combinations of under 10 researchers mostly in the same journal, and focus on the impact on corals (possibly 2 factions, one calling the disease Skeletal Eroding Band and the other "Caribbean ciliate infection"), so we have to avoid to straying into Skeletal Eroding Band's territory. What are your ambitions for this article? I dont' think there's a GA's worth of sources to provide adequate coverage, and we'd have to be very careful about WP:SYN and other nasty diseases. I can knock out a patchy article using what sources I've found, and see if that provides enough for you to work up a DYK hook. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Your original message about this said, "I am very interested in coral". If you want to work on coral-related articles, it might be good to drill down from Cnidaria, which provides basic info and refs about corals. Or you could approach the subject via reef ecosystems, which would give you the opportunity to find a wider range of related subjects to work on, e.g. ecosystems, conservation, economic aspects, and all the types of organism that coral reefs support. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a GA or anything. I'm just not interested in that. I like starting little articles that others eventually expand (and also it was a red link that I came across). This one is interesting because scientists, being focused now on the critical importance of coral reefs, are looking into what is destroying them and discovering how much they do not know. These now obscure topics (specific agents that infect and kill coral) are just now being detected and will become important in the future. I don't have your thoroughness. I am looking for a simple little article that explains a few points. I can't read lengthy, detailed articles, never mind writing them! (I copy edit long ones under duress, the Fertilisation of Orchids being the pleasurable exception). Halofolliculina corallasia only has to be over 1500 characters for a DYK and make some clear, understandable statements. My attention span is fractured lately. I can learn the coral and coral reef vocabulary slowly by dipping my toe into small, circumscribed articles. I am considering books on coral to acquire. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hope I haven't over-expanded Halofolliculina corallasia then :-) However the research for this convinced me that coral diseases are a growth area and this is a good time for you get interested.

Now it's your turn - let me know when you've thought of a DYK hook. --Philcha (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointed out why merge would be premature at this stage. I also posted to Wetman, who put the banner on Halofolliculina corallasia, that he needs to get the procedure right for a merge. Then I saw that you'd tried to correct his error, but your attempt omitted something - where the discussion should be. I suggest you remove your banner from Skeletal Eroding Band and let Wetman get it right.

Meanwhile I'll rationalise the structure of both articles. --Philcha (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-structure done, I think it makes it clear that the articles have a different focus. --Philcha (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not put the merge banner on Skeletal Eroding Band [7]. Wetman did. So I don't think I should unilaterally remove it. I did comment on the discussion page. Also, now there are hook problems. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the re-structure has invalidated the DYK hook? I've just looked at some comments at Template_talk:Did_you_know and it's all be about wording, not about whether it's valid. Halofolliculina corallasia still says it'sthe first known coral-killing protozoan or eucaryote. --Philcha (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because where it is sourced in the article, it reads like it is SEB and not Halofolliculina corallasia that is both a protozoa and a eukaryote. Maybe it just needs rewording. It would be best if the hook can be sourced in the lead for DYK. It is best for DYK that the hook be very clear, easy to find, and be sourced directly. Regarding the merge tags, I did not put either one there. Is it all right to remove them, do you think? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I know Wetman put the tag on Halofolliculina_corallasia but I thought you put it on Skeletal Eroding Band - perhaps I misread the history. Anyway he hasn't centralised the discussion, i.e. neither tag links to the Talk page of the other article, so right now it's improper procedure

Re the support for DYK, is this better? --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like the latest hook idea. Long Shrift did the real work, I just buffed it up a bit. We should thank (?)him if it runs. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would I put a merge tag on either article? You did misread. I do like the new alt hook. Re: "However, the relationship between the presence of ciliates and coral mortality has not yet been firmly established."A mechanism of transmission and factors affecting coral susceptibility to Halofolliculina sp. infection

Re ""However, the relationship between the presence of ciliates and coral mortality ...", my Talk page - I'm losing my sense of direction. --Philcha (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Geology of the Grand Canyon area

Thanks for your edits! :) --mav (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is a lot of good information in the reference articles that are already linked to the article, maybe all that you need. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Okeanos Explorer

On August 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Okeanos Explorer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article etiquette

Can you answer my question about good article etiquette [8]? Thatcher 00:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have answered your question![9] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but further... Thatcher 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have answered on GAN talk page (with typos).[10] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

I'm up to the death of Stalin. I know I'll have to go back and trim, but almost any article on a world leader is huge. Now comes the hard part, all the stuff about him in power.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some of it can be spun off into sub articles. Too much detail becomes unwieldy and the overall picture is lost in the subplots that don't have a large impact on the outcome. For example, it is very complex after Stalin died—how Khrushchev consolidated his power. But should all the moves be in this article? —mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll concentrate on doing it lightly, and if necessary spin it off into at least short articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Whitepox disease.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whitepox disease.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• See: "White pox disease is characterized by white circular lesions on the surface of infected colonies (Photo: Dr. A. Bruckner, NOAA)"white pox disease A. Bruckner is an employee of NOAA. It says so right on the photo. —mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks. Okay, removing. Bear in mind that the photograph that provides his affiliation is hosted on a different page, but not on the source for the image in question. In future you can avoid this type of confusion by providing both links as sources with your upload. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Living River Siam

Hey there :) When you pass a GAN, don't forget to replace {{GA nominee}} with {{GA}}, and replace the nomination date with the current date and time. The | subtopic = parameter doesn't work either, and has to be replaced with | topic = .

Keep up the good work, by the way. You've been doing an impressive amount of content editing lately. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Halofolliculina corallasia

The bot screwed up; your hook will actually appear in about 5 hours. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Halofolliculina corallasia

On August 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Halofolliculina corallasia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946

Would you mind going through this article? Tony's expressed some concerns on the FAC page, which speak for themselves, and which are not unreasonable. I think it is really a question of writing style. An article written by one person is going to exhibit that one person's writing quirks, which we've discussed. Worth it to get Nixon off the agenda. No need to rush, I don't expect you to be on call to clean up my messes. Thanks for what you can do though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Later today. —mattisse (Talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I am understanding part of his objection, though he didn't say it outright: I try to make sentences work too hard. I'm going through, cutting up sentences. Possibly I also use word choices and placement to try to convey subtleties that don't always come across, but that's harder to work on. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi Mattisse. I see you are busy as usual. I'm here to ask for your assistance, but while I'm here I'll let you know that I have left Medway Council. I'm going back into teaching. So my Medway Council email will no longer be operational. My home one is still active though.

Anyway - I responded to a request to do a GA review on History of Sesame Street. It's gone well - it's a decent article. But I have a few quibbles:

1. The tone and detail of the first paragraph of the lead, and the Beginnings section I feel may be too anecdotal and trivial, and so not pass 3 (b) (this would also mean not passing 1 (a) and (b)).
2. The article relies heavily on 3 or 4 books which are not available online. When earlier checking out two online sources the sources did not support what had been written in the article - this has now been corrected in one case, and switched to one of the off-line sources in the other. In cases like this I tend to get hold of one of the books to check it out - but the nominator is in a hurry. What is your view? There is the sense that if somebody later finds the article is not accurate to the sources the article can be delisted. And, as it stands, it complies with GA criteria (I think!).
3. The last quibble is to do with broad coverage. The main article has a Sesame_Street#Broadcast_history section. I wonder if the History article should have the same; and if it should cover more than just the history of SS in America - that there should be greater detail on SS around the world, and SS in different presentation formats. The nominator feels that the article is fine as it is. I couldn't find any examples of other History of TV Show articles with which to compare.

I'd appreciate you taking a look. Thanks SilkTork *^YES! 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead starts off too detailed and anecdotal. I think the "dinner party" and the husband's name etc. is trivial weighted against the rest of the article content. I too am uncomfortable when no facts are able to be checked. One of the books used most in the article, is online and probably contributes to the tone in the article you dislike.[11] The book is written very much from "Joan's" point of view and is emotional in tone rather than scholarly. Several of the books are "searchable" at amazon.com, if you wanted to fact check certain items.

I agree that it should have a {{global}} view and not just U.S.

As far as having a "broadcast history" section, I don't know as it is a little unclear what this article aims to cover. I notice that in the Sesame Street article, History of Sesame Street is listed as the main article under the heading Beginnings. So it is not meant to cover more than the beginnings? A little confusing why this article exists independently.

Also, who were the "team of producers" directors and other involved people, and how much was Joan involved after the its creation and the beginning? The article seems rather focused on Joan, who (although important) is not responsible for 40+ years of history. What is the focus of this article? It seems unbalanced if it is meant to cover the "history" of Sesame Street. —mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 22:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

{{help}} Suddenly I can no longer edit as I have been blocked for no reason. I do not understand what has happened. —mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the log, you have not been blocked. I don't know why you can't edit - try {{adminhelp}} maybe? Intelligentsium 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} Why can I not edit? My block log shows no blocks. I am confused. —mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have been autoblocked. Please follow the directions at Template:Autoblock. --Mysdaao ^talk 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you use IRC, I'll be able to help you there, otherwise you can email me the block info. This is the "To request unblocking" box in the "Additional information" section of the block message. Special:Emailuser/Prodego. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock-auto|1=72.184.7.177|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "CallMeNow". The reason given for CallMeNow's block is: "harrasment spa".|3=Jake Wartenberg|4=1555249}}

Request

(moved remarks placed here to the appropriate monitoring page[12])

Please do not carry on conversations with other users on this talk page. Thank you. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed my comments from "the page" Mattisse place them, per the reasons outlined here [13]. Giano (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the provocation, Mattisse. --Philcha (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, ignore it. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is provocation you want, then look to your charge. Either control her or admit defeat. Quite frankly, I care not which, just stop her trolling, or let he meet her inevitable wiki-end - it matters not. OK? Giano (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mysore and Coorg FAC

Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Your feedback needed ...

... at Talk:History_of_Mysore_and_Coorg_(1565–1760)#A_social.2C_economic.2C_cultural.2C_administrative.2C_....3F_history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome further comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Archuleta v. Hedrick

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

BorgQueen (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Congrats. I'm happy to see good content being created. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Voting System FAR

I have nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams

On October 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (see the pageview stats(?)) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Swedish language refs

You had a go at trying to identify reference improvements for Swedish language recently, but I think your methods were somewhat blunt. I'm not against bolstering the referencing overall, but I think templates are really not the best way to deal with this. I believe it would be much better if you brought up in detail on the talkpage what you'd like to see improved.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Have had horrible success in the past bringing up such on article talk pages, so I think I will skip it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you wouldn't reconsider? I don't know what experiences you've had here, but I've always preferred proper discussion over anonymous and difficult-to-interpret template insertion. Dialogue is so much better to understand exactly what is or isn't required.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but no. When an article is an FA, bringing up criticism on the talk page often brings attack and abuse. They are not like regular article talk pages when constructive suggestions are taken seriously. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 11:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Commenting" class

(moved to monitoring page User:Mattisse/Monitoring#.22Commenting.22_class. This page is not for comments to my mentors/advisors. It is not a place to discuss me in the third person. Please supply specific diffs for all complaints. Per the arbitration decision, monitoring should concentrate recent behavior and not rehash old incidents. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Raven Ridge

On October 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Raven Ridge, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

{{User0|Giants27 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

John Carter & Mattisse's Mentors.

(moved inappropriate comment to monitoring page User:Mattisse/Monitoring#John_Carter_.26_Mattisse.27s_Mentors. —mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, it was not an "inappropriate comment." Giano has every right to be frustrated with his name being dredged up in nearly every discussion someone attempts about your behavior. And your continual removal of his posts to the monitoring page isn't helpful either. He's made it clear he doesn't want his name associated with that page. UnitAnode 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe I have raised Giano's name. If he has a beef with another editor, he should take it to that editor's talk page. I have previously requested that Giano not post here, and respectfully ask that he honor that request. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really denying that you brought Giano and Bishonen's names into this? Seriously? UnitAnode 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And the primary reason he couldn't post on my page is that I explicitly requested it up front. As an admin, I guess he gives my requests more credit than he does those of Mattisse, who indicates that she had previously asked him to stay of her page. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[:This seems to be yet another argument around here that isn't related to some of the other ones I've been following. How can there possibly be this much conflict at Wikipedia? What are the articles involved in this dispute if you don't mind me asking? Btw, if you want to help me out a bit I'm working on an article about Wikipedia administrators here: User:Varks Spira/Wikipedia administrator. I would appreciate it if you could even spread word of this draft article to anyone on the other language-versions of Wikipedia so that I could achieve a worldview on the subject. Cheers, and don't take all of this fighting to seriously, Varks Spira (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not the right place, seriously. Find your source material somewhere else. --Moni3 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And not a good place for advertising.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Links as opposed to body of comments from other pages

There is a good point that maybe just including links to comments on other pages, as opposed to the whole body of infmoration from those pages, would work just as well. It would probably decrease the heat on the monitoring page, because of the extra work involved in seeing the comments and by not displaying any "hot button" words on the page, and also make the page a lot shorter and easier to store in a single archive. Thinking down the road here, in the future, any new editor seeing a lot of archived pages there might react by thinking "Holy $&!*?! How bad is this woman?!" where one archive page wouldn't give that impression. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Test and List of Johnny Test characters

I thought I'd bring these to your attention as there is alot going on here. I would make drastic changes, but I've already cause quite a stur as it is. Sarujo (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am unable to do any copy editing anymore. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Clarification" at ArbCom

I think you should give yourself to think calmly and then probably edit Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Statement_by_Mattisse, which I think you wrote while upset and confused (not unreasonably). While Moni3 has sometimes be critical of your conduct, she has consistently been constructive, all the way back to the early mentoring proposals during your ArbCom. While I disagree with Moni3 about many specific issues, I respect her determination to find ways of making progress. Recently Moni3 was the first to suggested a more structured format, some variation of which should remove the free-for-alls that have been confusing for you and for all those whose are trying to help you. If we can agree a business-like format that gets issues resolved clearly and usually quickly and then such a proposal gets ArbCom's blessing, free-for-alls should be very rare and possibly result in severe warnings for those who cause them. In short, I think Moni3's referral to ArbCom and her short-term lock on the monitoring page will be helpful to you. --Philcha (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Moni3 did make a good suggestion, which my monitors/advisers adapted yesterday and on which we were working. However, Moni3 has also personally attacked me [14] and refused to retract when asked by another admin.[15] I cannot trust her. Things are unstable enough without an admin like that involved, taking sides, and locking down my user space page. That is an abuse of admin tools. —mattisse (Talk) 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, regardless of right or wrong, I think you should chill on rushing to your own defense. It should be clear to you that there are many editors out here who value the work you do on wikipedia and many of them are willing to go the extra mile to help you. However, your situation here, again the validity of the 'why' is no longer important, is rather precarious, and, each and every time you rush to your own defense you only end up slipping down the slope a little further. Others are defending you, let them do it. Far better, I think, to focus on the many people who want to help you than to hunt everywhere for signs of editors trying to diss you. I won't pretend to understand where each and every person who comments on you is coming from but I can quite clearly see where all this will end up if you don't learn to keep the stuff that is inside you - inside. (I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but I think it needs to be said by somebody.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

As the monitoring page is locked down and Arbcom considers whether to help structure the page more properly, I am putting concerns here in the hopes that mentors will step in. These comments [16] [17] contain inappropriate content -> speculation on motivations of other editors, and making accusing/deragatory comments about another user without diffs. Mentors, please discuss with Mattissee whether these comments were appropriate. I'd appreciate if this could be done in a public forum - here, or somewhere else with a link provided. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I will go through all of SandyGeorgia's edits and post here diffs registering her dissatisfaction. As far as you second point, where did arbcom give SandyGeogria any feedback that she had enhanced influence over what happens to me after arbcom ended or that she has special input into the monitoring? I though it was clear by the arbitration outcome that she did not. Please provide diffs showing that she does. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of further clarity, these are the particular sentences I found problematic:

• Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way --> implying that a) Moni was acting on Sandy's behalf and b) that SandyGeorgia is upset for not getting her way (both are about motivations of other users, and both show a failure to assume good faith)
• ArbCom gave [SandyGeorgia] no rights regarding my mentoring, but rather tended to disregard her suggestions -> no diffs on "tended to disregard her suggestions"; the current phrasing appears to me an attempt to discredit a user, and for this a diff should be necessary.

Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The post discredits the user only if that user believes he or she has special rights. Otherwise, it is just a statement of fact.

The only editor that continually and insistently posted after the page was cleared was SandyGeorgia (and Moni3).(See page edit history [18]) Not one other editor was posting after the page was cleared yesterday. So the page was locked down to prevent the removal of SandyGeorgia's posts. It was very discouraging to see the "discussions" resume after my mentors/advisers and I had decided that the page could not continue that way. To have SandyGeorgia repeatedly posting, and Moni3 "explaining" to SandyGeorgia on the page was exactly what we wanted to eliminate. I removed SandyGeorgia's repeated post to the editorial comment page. Look at the edit history of the page to see if anyone other than SandyGeorgia was making posts. —mattisse (Talk) 18:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will collect SandyGeorgia's suggestions from the arbitration and we can count how many were accepted. Is that fair? It is difficult to proof the absence of something. —mattisse (Talk) 18:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Karancs. I think the 2 cases you cite are different:

• "ArbCom gave [SandyGeorgia no rights regarding my mentoring, but rather tended to disregard her suggestions"], Mattisse, you should remove "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" - the preceding clause makes the point well enough, and "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" would require a ton of evidence, some of which could only be obtained by peering inside the heads of Arbs. When oposting on contentious subjects like this, I recommend that you use "preview" before thinking of saving, and remove any phrases that you cannot back up with overwhelming evidence.
• "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way" was a seriously stupid comment by Mattisse:
  • IMO Moni3, despite disagreeing with Mattisse quite often, has acted constructively all the way back to the earliest mentoring proposals at Mattisse's ArbCom. I think Moni's lock of the monitoring page and referral to ArbCom on how to make this thing work are helpful, as I explained above. Mattisse, I can easily understand that you've been stressed about all the dog-piling at your monitoring page, which at least half of your mentors have struggled with limited success to bring to a halt. But I think you totally misunderstand the likely effects of Moni3's actions.
  • Implies that Moni3 is a tool of SandyGeorgia is ridiculous and insulting to Moni3. I recommend a full an immediate apology to Moni3. Since the ANI has been archived, you would normally not be allowed to edit part of that discussion. However in this case I think it advisable, if the rules allow it. Karanacs, do you know whether it would be permissible for Mattisse to sanitise that part of her remarks? --Philcha (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I neither require nor desire an apology. I expect people mean what they say, as I do. If they think otherwise afterwards, then I hope that goes to how they behave in the future. Mattisse does not designate what my motivations are, despite what she posts. --Moni3 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Same here, but there's a bigger issue. Mattisse is under ArbCom sanction, and she has violated them. Striking those comments before the arbs review them will be to her benefit. To answer Philcha's question, yes, I have seen editors strike comments after archiving, and I can't see why anyone reasonable would object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Moni3 made up her mind long ago and is not disinterested. Example: [19] —mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Mattisse, please follow the advice of your mentors. You are not helping yourself. The diff you linked expresses the exact same sentiments about your behavior that Arbcom approved; Moni just uses more colorful language. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• <edit conflict> Philcha, please look at the edit history of the page[20]. After the page was cleaned up yesterday and my mentors/advisers were contributing constructive ideas, SandyGeorgia was the only editor to post. She and Moni3's interference. If you look at the history, you can perhaps understand what I was experiencing. ArbCom made it clear that only I was responsible for my plan. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse, could you please explain why you think it was wrong for me to post to the talk page, providing a sample to work out the kinks before a new structure was implemented? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Moni3 sometimes gets exasperated and blows her top. Unfortunately you seem to have the knack of making that happens, as at the M. by Internet GA review. However Moni3 has put a lot of work into contructive comments over the last 3-4 months, and you should be grateful that someome who has had disputes with you still continues to be constructive. One of the things you need to learn is the difference between disagreement. and hostility. I won't embarrass the innocent by naming them, but there are some editors with whom I have had vigorous debates, but also enoughs laughs - sometimes in the middle of debates. In fact some people treat debates as a sport, like chess or tennis - I sometimes do so if I think I'm dealing with another players of the same "game", but try to hold back on WP unless I get the right vibes. After the digression, back to the message: disagreement is not hostility. --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, would you like to provide diffs or other links? --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs or other links to what? I'm querying statements made in this very section ... ???? (Including at 18:00 and at 18:35). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe SandyGeorgia could explain why she is, to my mind, over preoccupied with me and my failings, as exemplified by this discussion on her talk page[21] when I have little if anything to do with her. I rarely post on FAC, I no longer do extensive reviews and copy edits of FACs. I have given up for the time being reviewing GAs. How do I get in SandyGeorgia's way enough for her to go to all this trouble to get me banned? It is ok for Moni3 to blow her stack every now and then, you say Philcha, but when I get hectored by constant negative postings on my page and see my mentors/advisers attacked it is not understandable that I get upset? I don't understand the rationale. Why does Moni3 even care? is it just because Munchausen by Internet never made it to GA? Isn't it time to drop the grudges and leave me alone? My mentors/advisers have been wonderful and I have learned a lot. It seems to me that my failing are few and are brought on by this hectoring on the mentoring page. Thanks. —mattisse (Talk) 20:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This very section is becoming as big as muddle as the monitoring page became - it started as 2 incidents posted by Karanacs, but has spread into structuring the mentoring process, and goodness knows what else. Can I suggest:

• We ask the Arbs if we can make a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification to develop a structure for Mattise's monitoring page. That way constructive and well-thought suggestions can be discussed in public but under the watchful of the Arbs.
• Until that is done, Mattisse create a "pending" page, from which the mentors can process cases in chronological order of creation once the structure is in place. The monitoring page will need a link to this, which will need to be edited in by an admin as the monitoring page is currently locked.
• Mattisse, that approach would create some short-term risks for you, as there would not be immediate responses to any genuine incidents. You would have to be very disciplined and patient - if you are considering a post that comments on the conduct or motives of other editors, contact one or more of your mentors and delay the post until you get feedback from the mentors you contact - starting now, and with this Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, part of dispute resolution is a willingness to engage in dialogue with other editors. You've never done that, and are changing the subject here. I asked why you think it was wrong of me to post a sample to talk; will you please answer? And where have I ever tried to get you banned? I can't think of any two editors who have worked as hard as Moni and I have at avoiding what is happening today; you ending up back at ArbCom because you didn't consult your mentors or take their advice. Please answer the question: why do you think it was wrong for me to post a trivial sample on your monitoring talk page, to help get a better structure in place ? (Philcha, for gosh sakes, Mattisse doesn't deal well with page moves; leave this where it started. We've got too damn many pages already, with discussion about Mattisse spreading all over wiki!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, I'm still unclear why you're requesting a diff? Perhaps because you didn't see the monitoring talk page before it got chopped? Here it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I apologise if I missed something - as I said, this Talk thread is becoming thoroughly muddled, and that's why I suggesting discussing a structure of mentoring at a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I just was unclear what you were asking, and wanted to be sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

break

• <edit conflict> To SandyGeorgia. Because my mentors/advisers and I had just undergone a rough period of time with multiple attacks on them, arguments between editors on the monitoring page etc. that I have described elsewhere. And we had decided to have a strict format so that the monitoring page was not a free for all. After the page had been cleared for the last time and my mentors/advisers and I were discussing the format, you posted a longish post that Moni3 felt she had to answer, and you to answer that etc. and the who dismal situation of editors discussing me in the third person again on a page that was meant for communication between me and my advisers/mentors. Why did you insist that you had to post right then? Why could you not allow me and my advisers/mentors a little breather to collect ourselves. Some editor called User:Unitanode, whom I have never heard of and never had any interactions with, posted six times in one day (August 13) on my talk page, as well as a multitude of times on the monitoring page, as well as posting individually to my mentors/advisers, to your talk page, to NewYorkBrad etc. Do you not think it is time to step back for a while? Why are all these people involved that I have had no connection with? Why the full court press? The new format for the monitoring page was meant to stop all this, and restrict posts by other editors to a brief comment, plus diffs, plus a statement of expectations and notes by mentors/editors. It was very discouraging to see the whole circus begin instantly again when we actually had a format in hand. Why not give us a chance? Thanks. —mattisse (Talk) 20:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are referring to, Mattisse. I posted a trivial sample so your mentors could see if the proposed structure would work, on talk. What exactly are you talking about? I was trying to help you and your mentors, by providing a sample on talk. If I had bad intentions towards you, I could have just waited for the structure to be put in place, and load it up with multiple examples; have I done that ? I just provided a diff for Philcha of the page before you started moving things; where are these posts you are referring to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also, FYI, you haven't yet struck the comments about me at AN/I as recommended by Philcha above. For me, there's no difference, but it will help your case before the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that I struck through the part Phicha suggested as soon as he suggested it. I will check and do it again, if necessary. —mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• <edit conflict x 2> I have lost my edits and I am tired. If you look through the edit history of the monitoring page, you will see exactly what happened on that page. And that is not counting the constant posts and edit conflicts on my talk page. We had worked out a format, we were finalizing it. We had cleared the page of extraneous posts. Sandy Georgia posted, Moni3 felt she had to post in response and the whole vicious cycle was returning. It had to be nipped in the bud. Next others would be giving their opinions who were not mentors/advisers etc. etc. Give us a chance to catch our breath. If you have a complaint, you will be asked to post a (very brief e.g. one sentence) description with a diff, reference the norm violated in the Arbcom, the damage you felt it did to Wikipedia, what you expect the mentors/advisers to do. Then the complaint can be processed in an orderly fashion. More suggestions at this point is not helpful. Let us try out our format. Thanks. —mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a mistaken impression that the monitoring page was a free-for-all where anyone can post suggestions/arguments/complaints how ever they feel and whatever format they choose. We wanted that stopped as that had become impossibly overloaded and negative. Now it is only the mentors/advisers that will post on the monitoring page for the time being. ArbCom made it clear that I was responsible for these mentoring pages and that I was in charge. SandyGeorgia is insisting on doing it her way right now. I am saying no, we need to collect our thoughts and ideas about what has happened already. There is no reason to put people under this much stress and expect them to operate optimally. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mattisse, but you can no longer avoid necessary dispute resolution by claiming that you're too tired to back up your statements after dissing another editor. This is the page just before you started moving posts. WHERE are these posts you mention? That sample was an explicit example of exactly what you and your mentors were working on, specifically placed only on talk to help out in the effort. When you make derogatory statements about other editors, you need to be sure you are correct, and you need to be able to back them with diffs. Your misunderstanding of me and my motives has caused enough agida for all of Wiki that it is time for you to provide diffs, not say you're too tired. The edit conflicts, which caused this whole brouhaha, and caused you to be so tired, only happened because you didn't explain what you were doing, didn't answer queries, and didn't wait for your mentors. It's time that you started treating other editors the way you want to be treated. I will be out for most of the evening, and all day tomorrow. I will be checking to see if you've struck your post at AN/I, because it is time that you started listening to your mentors and treating other editors fairly. If you aren't able to find it, perhaps a mentor will help, as I'll be out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to avoid anything. Please assume good faith and do not automatically disparage me. I am sick of repeating myself. But I will do it again. My advisors/mentors were in the process of coming up with a strict format to prevent free-form suggestion, comments, criticisms, discussion between other editors who were not advisers/mentors from occurring on that page, as it was disruptive. We were undergoing that process when Moni3 decided to lock down the page. Therefore, until it is unlocked not much can be done. Once we are able, my advisers/mentors and I will continue our work. It is not true that anyone has a right to post on my userspace page. I have determined that for now, only my advisers/mentors can post there so we can complete our work without disruption. It is not productive to insist on posting on that page. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And you, and only you caused this whole brouhaha, resulting in you being before ArbCom again, because you acted unilaterally, apparently based on a misunderstanding, and without consulting your mentors, again. When you cause problems, you have to accept the tiring consequences of dealing with the fallout. A huge percentage of Wiki's best editors are involved now in trying to help you. Please start helping yourself. If you can't back disparaging comments you make about other editors, stop making them. I agree with the sentiment below that everyone would be well advised to take a breather, but unfortunately on Wiki, once you start problems, they tend to spiral. That's the nature of Wiki, so it's best not to start them to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It would helpful if others would comment on my suggestion to use a subpage of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification to develop a structure for Mattise's monitoring page. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Breathing space

Mattisse, there is so much happening right now. Too much. The drama is escalating, and people are hurting. I have just spend a considerable amount of time reading through various postings. I don't want to spend my Wiki time reading through all this non-productive stuff. While all this is happening, we are not having fun, and we are not building the encyclopedia. And, worse, all this bickering is making things worse.

I have told you I will continue to assist you with your plan, but you need to help me do that. You need to help all of us do that. Stop commenting right now on any individual on Wikipedia. Do not make any comments here, on the ArbCom page, on your Monitoring page, on anyone's talkpage, or any other page on Wikipedia about any other Wikipedia editor. Do this for 48 hours. This will allow matters to calm down a bit, and for your mentors/advisors to catch up on what's happening.

I am looking at these coping techniques in your plan:

• "Disengage from interactions in which I feel stress or negative emotions before my behavior become problematic."
• "Consciously be aware that I do not have to address points registered against me, but can choose to disengage instead."
• "Refrain from tendency to answer every point made in remarks to me."
• "Follow the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past."

Follow the advice. SilkTork *^YES! 21:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. --Philcha (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Me three. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I have just now read this part of my page. I will do no more commenting anywhere. I am so grateful that you guys are willing to keep working with me. I feel that we have a format pretty well nailed down to try out as a complaint form. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Threaded discussion in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification is not for threaded discussion. If you simply must respond to someone, you have to respond to them in your own section - not in their section. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, please put your comments in your own section: I've moved your latest from my section to yours, but I'm in a hurry, so you'll have to doublecheck that I did it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So who's going to move Giano's interpolation into Mattisse's statement? --Philcha (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of mentoring page

Mattisse, I don't think anyone else agrees with your idea that the mentoring page is only for yourself and your mentors. While I want cut right down on the dog-piling, hostilities and downright irrelevances, there has to be a place for concerns to be raised. OK, in theory they could be raised at some sort of "pending" page, but then they'd have to be summarised at the mentoring page - and the person best placed to do that is the original poster. That's why some of us support a structure approach including a form, with sections for the original poster, the mentors and yourself - and IMO no other parties, because that's been where the muddles have arisen. I suggest other parties comment at a subpage which the mentors can review before making recommendations. --Philcha (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been two issues to mentor, which the advisors/mentors handled extremely well. And the joke sockpuppet incident, for which I was blocked for two weeks, longer that the abusive sockpuppeters at arbcom, as arbcom did not block anyone for long term abusive sockpuppetting. The only think that has not worked is the monitoring page. That is because it is a free-for-all. The mentoring process is working, in my opinion, but the monitoring page is not. There is no requirement that there even be a monitoring page. Dissatisfied editors with grievances can contact individual mentors/advisers. The mentoring page was being used almost entirely for abuse, attacks, and bickering. The monitoring page caused major stress on me, even though many of the posts were not about me but rather thoughts by uninvolved editors, or attacks on my mentors/advisers. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The monitoring page caused major stress on me, too :-( But IMO the problem was not the presence of the mentoring page but the presence of unhelpful posts there. I think a more structured approach, which allows only comments from the original poster, would be a big help.

We need a central place for this to happen. For example if someone with a concern has to contact individual mentors and the chosen mentor is unavailable, the delay in response could be dangerous for you. --Philcha (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; notice how things spiraled today while no mentors were available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how. If the page had not been locked down by an involved admin, there would not have been a problem. Even with the page locked down, there did not need to be a problem. I went to AN/I because I really believed that a user, in the normal course of events, could be forbidden from editing his own userpage. If I was wrong about that, I could have be told that I was wrong. There was no need to escalate this into a major situation. That is not a major incident and did not need to be addressed immediately. When I did something obviously wrong I was blocked. Other than the recent uproar caused by the multiple postings across forums by some editors, I have not engaged in a pattern of casting aspersions and personal attacks. I get along fine with 99.9999 percent of the editors on Wikipedia. If this is the nature of a major emergency on Wikipedia, then I have to say, "Yeah, it is just a website." Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Moni did you a huge favor by locking down the page, as that prevented you from digging yourself in further given that no mentors were available? That's what I saw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Moni3's locked down version of the monitoring page omits all the progress we had made. See this version I am not sure how the pared down version was chosen for lock down over the one with the mentors/advisers suggestions for improvements. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 22:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, well you were the only one removing content from the page, so if something was "stripped down", how can Moni help it? Please, when making statements like this, go back through the page and get them accurate. Everything that you removed is now on the "Editorial" page that you created. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with SandyG. One of the reasons I gave up on your mentorship was that I wasn't able to issue the short blocks you'd agreed to during the Arbcom case. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you said you were too tired to locate diffs, yet you continue editing, and still haven't struck this deragotory comment from AN/I: "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way". It doesn't appear that you are too tired to locate it, as you've already been to AN/I where you *altered* a comment rather than striking it. Moni did you a favor by preventing you from making your situation worse while your mentors were absent, and you can read NYB's comments on the arb, as well as Durova's. You've done this to yourself, but you still have a chance to salvage what you've done; rather than spending time arguing the situation here on your talk, don't you think your time would be better spent, and you could make a better case to the arbs by striking your derogatory comments at AN/I, and going through this (your) talk page to do the same? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I apologize for inferring that Moni3 removed material. When you introduced negative comments[22], the constructive atmosphere of the page once again became polluted. I sought to remove you comments to an alternative page, because frankly they made further constructive work very difficult. That was the problem before and the problem we agreed shouild be eliminated or controlled by a rigid structure. Because I became caught in a series of unfathomable (at the time) edit conflicts, I was caught in the middle when the page was locked down to prevent me from controlling the material on my monitoring work page. To me, it was either remove the comments and continue the constructive work, or allow them to stay and see the page devolve into bickering and ugliness again. I apologize if I implied that you did anything other than add the unhelpful comments and alter the constructive mood of the page and contribute to the confusing edit conflicts. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I appreciate that you apologized to Moni for the notion that she had removed material or was responsible for the state in which you left the page, but I still notice that you have not stricken or apologized for the comment on AN/I, as advised by Philcha above. Just noting that for the record, as it is these kinds of ongoing failures to assume good faith that lead to problems. By striking that commentary, you can demonstrate that you understand why such comments are inappropriate, a failure to AGF, and led to the original ArbCom.

• Understanding page histories and diffs is an area where your mentors might help you, and you appear to believe the things you state even when diffs show otherwise. You link a diff above as if it shows that I "introduced negative comments" on the page, leading you to remove comments. In fact, that is not the case at all. You began moving material with no explanation, and the comments and questions from Moni and me came after you initiated that process.

Here is how the diffs work; I do hope your mentors will work with you on this diff and edit history problem, as it seems to be recurring issue in your developing and holding unfounded beliefs.

1. This was the last edit before you began removing material.
2. Here, you began moving material.
3. Here I asked if you no longer wanted other editors to edit that page.
4. And again.
5. Now, since you have provided no diff that substantiates that you "sought to remove comments" after I "introduced negative comments", I am left guessing at what you consider negative comments. Are you referring to this, which was after you starting moving commentary, losing some in the process, and making a jumble of the new page by combining posts in to sections where they were not originally placed?
6. It is also completely inaccurate for you to continue saying that "I was caught in the middle when the page was locked down to prevent me from controlling the material on my monitoring work page." You had already removed all the material yourself; you failed to move it correctly to the other page, or to the correct sections. But you did control the material on your page; you removed it all. No one else had anything to do with that. What do you mean when you say you were "prevented" from controlling the material? What else were you intending to do? That is why I say Moni did you a favor, as you weren't apparently aware of what you were creating, and were digging yourself in, going against the consensus of your mentors that other editors could post to the Monitoring page, and your example of bringing other editors' posts to that page from the day before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you seem to hold many entrenched inaccurate views about other editors and their motives; until and unless you learn to read diffs and page histories and back your statements with diffs, it would be wise to refrain from making derogatory statements about your beliefs about other editors. You could have avoided this entire incident by 1) waiting for and talking with your mentors before moving commentary, and 2) immediately striking your derogatory statements from AN/I, which you have yet to do. Enough of Wiki's finest editors are spending inordinate amounts of time sorting these unnecessary messes, and it's time for you to start helping yourself, so they can do productive things like write articles, fight vandals, and review articles. The monitoring page was doing fine until you unilaterally started moving material, leading to a large number of editors now spending an entire day sorting the fallout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

These are your opinions SandyGeorgia. You seem to be making assumptions about what I believe and what I think I know. This is your version of events, and you are entitled to your point of view. Please allow me the same courtesy and assume good faith. None of us have a monopoly on the "truth". Really, the events of that day are a small matter. I submit that you, Moni3 and I all handled the situation poorly. Let us assume good faith and believe that at the time we each though we were doing the right thing, and that none of us were. Wikipedia was not being destroyed if one or the other of us did not get our way on that page on that day. It was a userspace page, not an article.

Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, those are not my opinions; they are the hard evidence, proof, data, the diffs, the page history of what did happen. Not subject to opinion. That is how arbs will measure you-- not based on opinions. Until you learn to read diffs and edit histories, you may continue to form erroneous recollections of what actually happened, and faulty assumptions about other editors and their motives. If you don't want to learn to read diffs, that's fine, but please take greater care in disparaging other editors as a result of your misunderstandings. AGF wears out when you continue the same pattern of behavior that Arbcom has already called to your attention. You decided (apparently, based on your unstruck post to AN/I), that Moni was acting on my behalf because I wasn't "getting my way" (even though I queried twice what was happening, and you didn't respond); your faulty recollection of what actually happened contributes to your inaccurate opinions about other editors. If you state those faulty recollections in public, you'd best be able to back your statements with a diff, or refrain from commenting on other editors' motives, as was pointed out in the final Arb decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to prove something here that does not need proving. We all three screwed up on that page on that day, I believe. Setting forth the article history does not address the statement: "Mattisse, you seem to hold many entrenched inaccurate views about other editors and their motives". Sequences of events does not firmly determine motivations when the situation is chaotic, and I, for one, had not a clue what was going on at the time. So I was losing edits and not getting a clear picture of the page. I made mistakes. However, this was a userspace page, not an article, so I maintain that nothing critical was happening here that emergency measures were needed. That is my view. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, your statement at AN/I, which remains unstruck, does address the statement about your views on other editors' motives. Um, and where did I "screw up on that page", btw? I queried you twice about what was happening, and Moni asked you to stop removing content before protecting the page. Those aren't opinions; they are diff-backed facts. What was critical that was happening is that the Arb decision clearly states that your plan is developed in consensus with your mentors, regardless of whether it resides in user space. I appreciate you acknowledging and recognizing and explaining the mistakes you made, but I will be more inclined to believe you really understand that if you strike your deragotory comments from AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I struck the part from AN/I that Philcha suggested I strike.[23] yesterday. Since the discussion is closed, my understand is that more changes cannot be made. Please assume good faith, and do not assume that my motivations are devious or evil or intentionally harmful. I believe that we all erred in that the monitoring the page could have been left alone for a while. No one had to get their way at that moment. I don't believe that it is important to assign "blame" in a chaotic situation, a situation in the big scheme of things was unimportant. Nothing had to be said on the page at that moment. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What you state above is inaccurate. You struck one of them, not the other, and you did already alter one of your posts even though the section was archived. And please take greater care not to malign other editors in your edit summaries (such as the last one). You have avoided answering what I did wrong in yesterday's incident; if you want to resolve disputes, you need to answer questions. You did assign blame: to me. Now it's up to you to clarify. I know that dealing with an uncomfortable situation that you created is not easy, but since you have refused to strike your deragotory statement about me at AN/I, this will continue until the dispute is resolved. I will be out all day; perhaps when I return I'll find the statement at AN/I has been struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you should remove "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" - the preceding clause makes the point well enough, and "but rather tended to disregard her suggestions" would require a ton of evidence, some of which could only be obtained by peering inside the heads of Arbs. Please provide a diff that I did not strike out the portion that my mentor/adviser Philcha suggested I do. There is no statement that I refused to strike. I did what Philcha said. Please assume good faith. I experience your words as harsh and demanding in tone, and I suggest attempts to assign blame are not helpful, as there is enough blame to go around. I would prefer a more constructive approach. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I recommended that you strike "Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way" (see the other diff), but was unsure whether it was "legal" to edit comments in an incident still on the main ANI page but flagged as "an archived discussion". I've seen no admin comment on this. Since SandyGeorgia and agree on this, I suggest you make the change and in the edit summary write in e.g. "change recommented by SandyGeorgia and Philcha at Mattisse's Talk". --Philcha (talk) 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I did as you suggested, Philcha. —mattisse (Talk) 16:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your post

Clarifications requests are not usually the place for back and forth between editors. In response to my comments you pose several questions. The syntax makes it unclear whether the queries are directed to the arbitrators, or are rhetorical, or are for me.[24] Several months ago you asked that I cease posting to your user talk. If today's questions are not directed at me, then feel free to blank this post and we can agree to disagree. If you intended to initiate a dialog then let's continue it here. I've been known to change my mind and revise opinions. Durova³²⁶ 00:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not know what to think of you or how to respond. I am not sure what you expect of me here. I am sorry that editors see my advisers/mentors as failures when they have been unfailingly informative to me. I certainly do not think they stint on criticism or give me a free ride. I would like to think that mentoring/advising can work on Wikipedia, and that good editors like me, excellent editors like me who engage almost entirely in content work without criticism, can be driven from Wikipedia by old grudges, still carried. Other than the last 24 hours or so, when I have been under unstinting (and unnecessary) pressure, I think you will find very few "mistakes" that I have made, other than the joke sockpuppet thing. I am not a perfect human being, but I have given liberally and constructively to Wikipedia. I think there is no question that I am a net positive. And the fact that some hold grudges over time should not determine whether I am allowed to continue to contribute to the project or not. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Then we share some common ground: mentorship as an undertaking can be worthwhile; it does have successes. Could it be possible that some of your critics are sincere (even if mistaken) and do not bear you a personal grudge? Durova³²⁶ 00:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything is possible. It is hard to understand when I have had no interaction with them at all outside the monitoring page today, do not edit the same places etc. What could the explanation be, do you think, besides old grudges? All I have been doing for a while is dyks and copy editing for a few trusted editors. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's possible I may have been mistaken. Your content contributions are very laudable. The thing is, some people have wikiphilosophies that occasionally get mistaken for personal grudges. It's best to think of WP:AGF as a checklist where bad faith is the final item after other reasonable possibilities are exhausted and opportunity for clarification has been provided. That's much easier to say than to abide by, so feel free to nudge me when appropriate if I err. There were basically three things in the last several months that caught my attention. One was the socking--or joke account if you'd rather call it that--which prompted two reactions. My inner teenager quietly found it hilarious, but the 41-year-old I actually am cringed for your sake. Really, tu quoque isn't a good answer to anything. Better to take the high road. Now in terms of joke accounts you may or may not realize this, but my own alternate account (who pretends to be a troll but really strives to be very uncontroversial) did have an unexpected run-in with you while he tried as hard as he could to be a good editor. My little sockpuppet User:Hamlet,_Prince_of_Trollmark was trying for a triple crown. His interests are very specialized: trolls and trolling (broadly defined), hosiery, and parodies of Hamlet. He's gotten three featured pictures on the themes "trolling" (from a Currier and Ives print of fishing), "sock" (from a hosiery factory) and "puppet" (from a burlesque poster). Found a company called Gold Toe Brands that didn't have an article yet and wrote something for it, yet it had trouble passing DYK review. Now Hamlet has a standing offer to retire if he actually offends anyone. So speak now if you object. He was thinking of raising either a Gilligan's Island episode or the Pets.com article to GA before he ran into experienced and prolific you at DYK nominees. If you don't mind his existence he'd be delighted because an important Tom Stoppard play called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead could really use improvement. Then--getting back to you--the events of the last day. I really want to see you doing all that good work that you do without the conflicts. Sometimes, in my book, that means saying 'no'. But not everyone who says 'no' is an enemy. In fact, one of the most effective ways to be someone's enemy is to say 'yes' every time a person wants to hear it. You know how that goes? Durova³²⁶ 01:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying. Is it that I did something wrong at dyk? I am even more careful now about verifying hooks. I avoid most and only verify those that are unquestionable. I no longer add comments and suggest very few alternative hooks. I am quite willing to give up verifying hooks entirely, as it is not fun but rather anxiety provoking. Is that what you are suggesting? I only do it out of a sense of obligation because I have so many dyks myself, so I am quite willing to give up any further involvement, other than entering hooks for consideration. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

-

(ec'd, saw the words 'rather anxiety provoking' added (but not much else) and willing to lay off upon request) Well, the general sense is that one incident is a one-off, two raises an antenna, and three is a pattern. The subtext seemed to be that the article might be getting held to a higher standard than others because the DYK might have been construed as promotional. Actually that hook was nearly the only interesting thing about the topic. I was on the fence about whether to outright say to you that it was my other account, but it's stated so prominently on the userpage that specific comment didn't seem necessary. Now consider for a moment if it had really been a new editor. Yes, you made me gunshy about using that account (which I had created because I was near burnout) and although he lingered a little bit he hasn't actually done very much in months. Wanted to keep him fun and productive. What if it had been an editor who was really new? Do you kind of see the concern? Taken together with your previous block of 2 September 2006, and your very pointy joke account while your conduct was under scrutiny, and the edit war within the last day--can you see how someone who mostly observes from a distance may think better a short ban than a long one? I may be wrong in that. But I don't want to see a long departure and I worry that may otherwise happen down the road. Durova³²⁶ 02:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this post, do you interpret this thread as an attack? I don't mean to personally attack you. Durova³²⁶ 02:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Durova,
• [25][26]
• I cannot make sense out of these posts. Could you explain what is being meant here? Could you give diffs so that I would know what on earth this refers to? Are you saying that you have a joke account and I did something bad to that joke account in dyk? I can't follow what you are saying. Can you clearly explain exactly what I did in that situation that was wrong? I assure you that if I ever knew a dyk was by a sockpuppet, I would skip it and let someone else deal with it. At the most, I would ask Art LaPella was to do. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but this discussion seems to have got lost its way. Durova, on the basis of your comments here I have no doubt about your good faith here. But your comments after the first have become longer and unfocussed. Perhaps you're trying to be diplomatic, but the result appears to be confusion. It might help if you return to your original point, about Mattisse's [comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. What are you you clear up? --Philcha (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please watchlist this page!

This is the new page for editors who are not my mentors/advisers to make editorial comments on: User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments. Please watch list this page. However, I would prefer that dissatisfied editors contact a mentor/adviser individual, to prevent a battleground or attack mentality from developing on that page. Please let me know if you object to this. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to respond to alerts about your behaviour, and to discuss with the other advisors the best course of action. And I will communicate with those who are impacted by your behaviour, and who wish to discuss the matter with me. And I will also respond to reasonable requests from people who might have an interest (members of ArbCom spring to mind) or who have a known history with you. But I'm not sure what benefit will be gained by my watching (and reading!) a side-discussion. Could you explain why I might need to watch that page? SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That should be reworked with my mentors/advisers. At the time, I was trying to move all the lengthy posts, discussion between editors who were not my mentors/advisers off the monitoring page so that I and my mentors/advisers could reasonably work on a complaint format free from attacks and the disruptive free-for-all that was occurring on the monitoring page. I felt the monitoring page had become useless. However, apparently I went about this the wrong way. So, I am looking for input on how to handle this. Meanwhile, at least the arbitration clarification request is siphoning off all the comments that would have gone on that page, so that is a blessing, and discussion is progressing as to a complaint form. What do you think I should do? Regard, —mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You should immediately stop claiming that you are the one who is being attacked, when in reality it is you who persist in impugning the motives of others. You just did it again above. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should pause activity on any of the subpages until the result of the ArbCom clarification is known. SilkTork *^YES! 11:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have. Thanks! —mattisse (Talk) 12:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Author's Farce ‎

Mattisse, I nominated The Author's Farce at FAC. I know you don't work on FACs, but I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking some time, looking over it, and perhaps making some comments on the talk page. You seem to be able to catch things other people miss. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Spotted Seal

On October 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spotted Seal, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for the contribution. Halloween DYK?Victuallers (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A start on the ArbCom report

Here. SilkTork *^YES! 10:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Goya

Mattisse I have an FAC I would very much like you to look at. A careful, detailed review from you would be appreciated. I would relish the challenge of going up against your scalpels, I think it would lead to a much improved artice. Ceoil (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to go through it, though having no expert knowledge on Goya. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

More please. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best if I do no more. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

GAN in progress

Hello, Mattisse. I'm reminding you that you still have a GA review in progress at Talk:Choor Singh/GA1. Jacklee has been reminded of this fact as well.--Edge3 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reminded him again on his user page. If only he would address the Talk:Choor Singh/GA1. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This has been completed. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain

Thanks for being one of the many hands that helped raise Crown Fountain from WP:GA to WP:FA status.

This user helped promote Crown Fountain to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Viedma Glacier

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

Bencherlite^Talk 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction

Thank you for clarifying the monitoring page move confusion. I was incorrect in stating that you were solely responsible for moving posts to and from the monitoring page. I have been so confused by the way everything's been moved that I missed the fact that others were helping with post archival. I should have rephrased to "Mattisse and her mentors have...". (I don't want to make corrections at Geometry Guy's page now because he's indicated that the conversation should be moved, but consider this my correction.) Karanacs (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC) PS I realized after I hit save that this could be taken as a rehashing of the conversation; I have no wish to do that, I just wanted to acknowledge that you were correct in pointing out my mistake. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. To clarify, I did not set up the archives, nor did I archive anything. Further, I did not remove anything from the page, until just before the lockdown. Rather, I moved two posts to the page from my talk page. Others removed their posts from the page. The only time I removed anything was just before the lockdown of the page by Moni3. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for United States v. Georgia

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

NW (Talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting

Thanks for the copyediting, Matisse; it's much appreciated. Here I was trying to say "eight or nine" with a dash because I had another "or" later in the sentence. Have any ideas on how to make it work? :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not very confident copy editing the article, not being familiar with the subject matter at all. MoS has strict rules regarding hyphens, dashes etc., but if I think about them too much I get mixed up. You should format it however you prefer over any changes I make. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Be confident; I'm looking over the copyedits anyway to be sure. ;-) In that, it now says "[...] ship with an eight-nine, 16-inch main battery, or rather one akin to "A", "B" or "C"" when we need it to say "[...] ship with an eight or nine, 16-inch main battery, or rather one akin to "A", "B" or "C". The problem is that there are two "or"s, and I can't come up with a way to phrase it... —Ed (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I did what I could but the article is over my head. I no longer copy edit articles, so I have forgotten many of the rules. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's alright; your copyedits were greatly appreciated, regardless of how little you remember. :-) Besides, I'm sure that if you missed anything the FAC people will catch it. ;-) Thanks again and cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The article is very well written and I was impressed. I am unsure about the hyphen/endash situation, as I said. Good luck! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks for your comments and edits to the article! I'll figure out the endash/hyphen crap when I go to FAC...so confusing. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think you could do some work on Khrushchev? Tony left a very productive note on the Military review page, pointing out some specific problems (I'll do them today or tomorrow, I'm trying to get some work done on Chamberlain) and seems to think it could use a ce. No huge hurry. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, as I am not doing copy editing for FAC or potential FAC articles any more. Gets me into too much trouble. I'm sticking to more serene areas of Wikipedia for now. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible DYKs

Just thought you might like to know. There are about 14000 works with at least the word "encyclopedia" prominently included in the public domain available at Google scholar here. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I am a little at a loss how to turn an encyclopedia into a dyk. Any hints as to how to do it? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, obviously, you can't. But each of those sources is at this point public domain. Which means, in the worst case scenario, you could take the content word for word from any one of the and add it to our article on the subject, if we have one. Like I've said elsewhere, we are missing a lot of articles, particularly about the non-English speaking world. And a lot of others are in fairly poor shape, Stubs and the like. With this, you could probably turn at least half of the articles which are basically "historic" in nature into real articles, by just adding the material from these sources. I was looking at one of the public domain books on the papacy, actually. About half of the articles we have on individual popes are right now stubs. With what in the public domain, considering history doesn't change that much over time, I think we could probably turn almost all of them into at least good C class articles. That's just one area I was noticing today, but there would be any number of others as well. Any state or country, I think I saw an encyclopedia of Virginia in there?, would welcome content regarding its historical political and cultural leaders, and improvement to the articles on its localities. Basically, find any subject that isn't too current that you find an interest in, use those sources and some other, more current ones, which you could probably get off the net, and I think you could probably turn virtually anything you wanted to into at least a good DYK, if you used multiple sources from there probably even at least a C class. And we've only got about 1 or 2 million stubs as we speak right now, so I think if you wanted to there would be more than enough to keep one occupied and keeping the DYK secton full for at least a few weeks, maybe even a few months. I guess it depends on how fast you can type. :) John Carter (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if material is in the public domain, it must either be quoted or rewritten in one's own words. Therefore, I only write articles on subjects that I know enough about, or can figure out, to write from scratch. I am not interested in doing an article otherwise. If you look at my dyk's or my article creations, you will see that they cover a wide range of topics, many weighted toward third world topics. But with each, I started with an interest in the topic. I have created hundreds of articles, almost all still basically in their original state, although some have undergone name changes. I no longer believe in the concept of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, which basically means I can only write articles on subjects that I am driven to learn about. My ability to copy edit has diminished also. I used to be able to copy edit any article on any topic for the joy of copy editing. Now I have to be motivated by a genuine interest in the topic, and cannot do it as "for Wiki hire" so to speak. Meaning, I am not willing to copy edit upon demand like I used to do. There was one editor who regularly copy/pasted my edits from his user space into his own article in the main space. After a while, I refused to copy edit his FACs any more, which caused a brouhaha. I think I was being regarded as a copy edit work horse. I'm no longer willing to do that. However, I appreciate your suggestions, as I would love to feel about Wikipedia as I did in the olden days when I really cared and believed in it. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt you. That's why I said find a subject that interests you up front. But there are so many subjects out there. For all I know, as a slight opera fan, I could probably put together about 30 to 40 articles on the more notable performers of Wotan in Wagner's Ring cycle on the basis of the material there. And I think most people would consider that a fairly minor topic. If nothing else, you might consider just paging through JSTOR, Google books or Google scholar and see if there are any subjects that aren't covered very well that you find interesting. We could use all of it, believe me. Anyway, if there are any subjects in there that do interest you, I think everyone would be more than happy to see you add whatever you wanted to from them. User:Himalayan Explorer, like I've said before, is one of our leaders in developing content from less-well-covered areas, and I'm sure if you wanted to help develop some content regarding such areas, I think he would have even more sources which could be used. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Carter. In fact I'd go further - find a topic you really, irrespective of whether it's covered already; there are always gaps to be filled. It's struck me a few times that much of your work at WP has been helping others - it's time to do something just for your own satisfaction. --Philcha (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That is what I have been doing lately with the dyk's. I have no desire to put substantial work into anything for Wikipedia again at this point. It is easier to do dyk's than to copy edit someone else's article. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 11:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably kind of off-topic, but I'm going to say it anyway. Last year, I pretty much spent six or seven months (I forget now) laid up as an invalid because of seizures. As you can probably guess, I had a lot of time to read then. You would probably be very surprised how weak some of the content we have one a lot of the big "controversial" material we have is. Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven is something I read I believe three times during that period. It is a really extraordinary book on Mormon society and history, and religious extremism in general. We have virtually nothing from that book here yet. Some years ago, almost all the adult males in Pitcairn Island were convicted of statutory rape by the UK. This was because the social morays of the Bounty sailors and Tahitian women (who may have been Caucasians?) were and are markedly different than those of most other people. Even people like Colleen McCullough are on record as defending the men. We have virtually nothing on that subject here either.

I am, pretty much, a religious scholar/fanatic. As such, I know just how much real trash there is out there on the net about a lot of these subjects, much of which often appears, unfortunately, on the first page of the Google search results. The Priory of Sion, the Protocols of the Elders of Sion, the third secret of Fatima, the list goes on. Even some subjects more important than those are still barely covered here. Falun Gong has millions of practicioners in China, and several thousand have been basically imprisoned and killed because of their belief in it. We have maybe a dozen articles total relating to the subject, and I created one of them only a month or so ago.

And the same can, unfortunately, be said basically about several nations and areas of the world. Did you know there are at least a few countries out there whose main article is still at "Start" class? And some of them, particlarly those not as well-known in the English language world, don't have many if any other artcles in better shape. Granted, some of them are not ones which strike many people as interesting. But the often millions of people who live there would very definitely be interested in knowing the rest of the world could at least find out something reliable about them. Right now, in a lot of cases, that is, really, work to do.

You may not believe in wikipedia. Fine. I'm not sure I do either. But I believe in aking it possible for people to be able to obtain something trustworthy on subjects of importance. Yes, I know Britannica is online, in a few languages. We are in hundreds. And most all of the other ones depend on us to provide a lot of their sourcing. Whether I myself believe in it or not, I know there are a lot of people out there, yes, including some of the broadcast media, who, basically, do believe in it and rely on it for background information. Right now, for a lot of the world, the background information we give is kind of weak. In those cases, I honestly believe that this is one of those places where a single individual could make a very real difference in the world.

Now, for all the grandiose mouthings above, you might wonder why on earth I waste so much of my own time in tagging and assessing articles and bitching about the conduct of others. Because, basically, I know my own writing sucks. There are a lot of other things that need to be done here, however, and I can use some of my time doing them and thus free up time for others who are better writers than me. You are one of those people.

In conclusion, all I really want to say is that, if you do find something that does interest you, about which you think the world could be better informed than it is, and you don't mind making the very real effort to produce material for it, I honestly believe you almost certainly would make the world a really better place by improving the quality of the information out there on some of the important, but often obscure, subjects. If a hurricane ever hits Tokelau and does a lot of damage, I'm pretty much certain that a lot of the press will wind up coming here to find out what Tokelau is. Right now, they won't find out that much. If that, or any other subject of similar real importance but weak coverage, is something that interests you and you wouldn't mind putting the work in to write up, I very much believe that your efforts would have results much beyond just getting a DYK, GA, or whatever for.

Anyway, shutting up now. John Carter (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I used to enjoy reviewing and copy editing FACs untill driven away from there by accusations about my comments about a couple of articles from a very few editors. I used to enjoy reviewing GAN, until driven away by accusations aout my comments about a couple of articles by a very few editors. I used to enjoy evaluating dyk hooks, but now I am under attack about that, an attack I don't at this point understand. So I will desist from reviewing hooks for now. The point is that just a couple of insistent editors is enough to drive a productive editor from Wikipedia chores. Is this in the best interest of Wikipedia? Regads, —mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Neither was it either of the two times so far that partisans have driven off almost all other editors from the Falun Gong material. In that case, both parties wound up driving away pretty much everybody else at different times. And, yes, if it weren't for Vassayana actively trying to recruit new editors, I think it might have ultimately been permanent the second time. And I wasn't talking about any of those subjects you mention above. We have over three million articles now, yes. Over half of them are, frankly, at best unimpressive. And I'm being nice there. You've been creating articles for DYKs a lot recently. Yes, I know, like we both have said, sometimes that's work. If I remember right, I had to leave messages on six project talk pages to find out where a certain town with a Nestorian bishop actually was, because we didn't have the spelling used in the source I had anywhere, and I mean anywhere, in wikipedia, I looked. 0 matches.

And I'm not saying anything against improvement of content either. But, in a lot of cases, we don't even have the basic skeletons of these subjects to ue as an outline yet. Yes, if we want to focus on the past, and how we were wronged in the past, we can. I did that a lot while I was laid up with seizures, believe me. ;) Particularly considering they were due to head trauma from a rather excessive mugging. But don't focus on what's in the best interests of the project here, or what isn't, because we all know that any time you get a lot of people together you will get conflict. In developing the groundwork of some content, though, there won't be many people there to conflict with. I developed really poor articles on some of the Coptic patriarchs and other saints/beati/whatever, and in most of those cases there is no controversy or conflict whatsoever. People were more than happy to just see some of these articles become more than just one or two sentences, they weren't going to complain about what was added.

A lot of these regions of the world, and countries, are, basically, even now still more or less verbatim from the CIA World Factbook. Some of the articles on religions, which I know better, are often, basically, verbatim copies from sources not even as reliable as that one. If you found that you had any interest in any of these topics, and there are a lot of them still, I doubt if much anyone would say anything other than "thank you" for working on them. And, yes, while preparing the "showpieces" is very valuable, particular for the editors working on them, preparing the groundwork is often even more important. A lot of the groundwork for a lot of subjects isn't even completely there yet. You have the experience of preparing "showpiece" articles, which would be very valuable in seeing that some of the articles which right now aren't even close to that level get there. And, in a lot of cases, there wouldn't be anyone objecting to seeing it developed. Pitcairn Island, which I mentioned above, is really, dare I say, a bit of an embarrasent to me here right now. I remember reading so much about it, and we've got virtually nothing about any of it. And it isn't really that unique around here, either. In a lot of these places, the relevant articles don't get touched much, if at all, and basically no one knows about them. The Falun Gong article I wrote is one I did nominate, and get, a DYK for. I nominated it in the hope that, maybe, seeing the article on the main page might draw some interest to the subject. I don't know if it did, but there are a lot of people working at least a little on the content now, when there were maybe four total earlier.

If there were any topics you did find interesting that weren't well developed, if you provided a bit of a focus for others to collect around, you might well be able to actually make the content on those topics something we could all be proud of. And I mean the entire content, not just those articles that are close to DYK, GA, or FA. That is, of course, if you found any subjects that really interest you. All I'm really asking is that you, basically, keep your eyes open. If there is one editor around here who basically knows the extant WikiProjects, I think a lot of people might say it was me. I've created and at least laid the foundations for a lot of them. I'd be more than willing to offer any help I might be able to on any topic, whether "Project" size or not, that you thought you'd like to work on. Like I said, my writing sucks, and being given something to do that I can do fairly well makes me feel a bit useful once in a while too. If you ever do find any topics that really do interest you, and you want a little help finding or structuring the content, plesse let me know. I'd be more than happy to do whatever I could. John Carter (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And, yes, you were good as a reviewer. You also occasionally engaged in behavior which came very close to your being blocked or banned (I forget which) in the argument with Cirt. I am not trying to be pointed here, but please remember that the reason you have been more or less asked away from some reviews is because of the recurring tendency you displayed of disruption there. It may only have been a small percentage of your total activity, but that small percentage might be the only FA or GA that particular editor brings up for nomination that year. And, for the review process to succeed, it has to, at the very least, not discourage people from nominating articles. If it becomes unpleasant, they may well not nominate any more articles, whether they qualify or not, and that would be very bad for the process and the encyclopedia. Particularly for such a procedure, it is vitally important that the people involved don't come away with a negaative impression of it. From what I remember having read at the time, there were some fairly widely held reservations about your conduct there. I'm not saying this to just criticize you. But there are some things which we are good at, that we perhaps become too involved in, and ultimately it could wind up being to our own disadvantage to continue doing them. Personally, if I had almost been banned because of a review, I would avoid reviews completely from that point forward if there was anything else I thought worth doing. Evidently, you do see writing new articles as being worthwhile. There is generally vey little controversy in that, except maybe in very rare circumstances finding that there's another article on the subject under another name. The ArbCom pointed out that you evidently become stressed during difficult reviews, and that, at least once in a while, you tend to take the comments of others as more personally directed at you than they might have been intended. That doesn't do any good for anyone. There wouldn't be anything like that controversy and contentiousness in creating new articles or developing stubs and other bad articles to a better level. And, yes, you might it much less stressful and more pleasant for yourself.

I know how difficult it can be to give up on something you really like doing and do at least fairly well (there's not that much I personally am really good at), and I know you were fond of reviewing and generally very good at it. The problem was the comparatively few instances when your actions became disruptive. There might not be the same excitement about creating or developing currently weak artiles, and the obvious sense of accomplishment might not be as extreme either. Yes, in some cases, people might never notice the new work for months or years. Some of the geographical stubs on the UAE hadn't been touched since I created them, and might at this point only get a few hits a month. But, if and when circumstances change and they become prominent in the news, then everyone will be grateful to have it.

Like I tried to indicate with my first username, "warlordjohncarter", I can be more than a bit of a belligerent bastard. I know from experience that there are some things I have been pretty good at in general that I now avoid because of the occasional negative consequencs for me or others. Maybe the time has come to admit that, while you were good at reviews, you might have been a little too personally invested in them at times, and that as a result they weren't as much of a positive to you peronally as you might have told yourself. God knows I found that out myself during my days in the student council and related activities in high school. I try to avoid "governmental" actions these days as a result. That doesn't mean that I can't do things related to the same basic subjects, but I do try to avoid taking on the "power" that comes with some of those responsibilities, because having to always remain on your toes about your own conduct got to me after a while. Maybe the time has come for you to admit the same to yourself, if you think that it applies. No one would ask you to be a "work horse", like you said earlier, but I believe we would all welcome input in developing weak content in any area. And God knows there is enough weak content out there. I'm at least marginally involved in all the geographical WikiProjects out there, and peripherally involved in a lot of the social and cultural ones. Almost literally ever one of them is comparatively undermanned. If you had any interest in any of those topics, and wanted to help develop the content, I;m sure the editors active in that area would be ore than happy to take any contributions you might want to make. Finally, maybe a bit belatedly, I tink I might actually really be shutting up now. Sorry for taking up so much space on your talk page. John Carter (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt ran to AN/I within minutes of his post of disagreement about the article. That was not right. In general, my opinion on the article was supported by others. He was, as you say, a bit of a "belligerent" person. People do not take well to honest criticism of their articles. Fluffy, "nice nice" evaluators do better on wikipedia, but is the fluffy "nice nice" comments the best way to obtain quality articles, or is it a way to let junk get the "banners" of "wikipedia's best" or "good article" status ? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)