User talk:Mattisse/Archive 25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SandyGeorgia's posts

  • My edit deleted by SandyGeorgia [1]

SandyGeorgia's posts2

Further diffs, accusations of stalking, personalizing and derailing FAR discussions, failure to AGF, pointy posts, edit warring, and accusations of a class sytems and cabalism, all after the ArbCom closed: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Any one of these diffs, taken alone, is not highly problematic, but taken in the context of your ArbCom and Plan, show that you still haven't understood what behaviors lead you to trouble. What concerns me most is that your mentors (with the exception of Malleus) have often turned a blind eye rather than helping you understand. Do they not understand that there are enough diffs showing that the problems have continued to justify re-opening the ArbCom? They aren't helping you if they don't point this out. Mattisse, I hope you will take a few weeks off, completely walk away for a while, and re-think your approach to Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm not sure what your understanding is of the Plan that Mattisse drew up, and the role of those who signed up to it, but most of those involved made clear here that we were not to overlook Mattisse's edits, but were available to give honest advise and opinion when requested. My wording was: "My role, as I understand it, is to be notified by Mattisse when she is encountering conflict, and to give her an unbiased assessment of the situation." The current situation here is very regrettable, and I think most of us are making it clear to Mattisse that we do not approve of her actions. But that she has done this has nothing to do with any of us, anymore than it has to do with any of the ArbCom members who agreed the plan. This is down to Mattisse herself. I think it would be helpful for all concerned if Mattisse be allowed to take responsibility for her own mistakes. While I am prepared to stand by her and continue to be her friend, that does not mean that I take responsibility for her mistakes. Those are her own. Just as I don't take responsibility for her copy-editing skills. Those are her own.
If at any time in future you feel that Mattisse is engaging in unseemly conduct, it might be helpful to contact myself or any of the others who signed up to the plan. We could look into it, and give Mattisse our views on what is happening. If you or others do not alert us to potential problems then in all likelihood we will miss it, as we are not watching Mattisse, nor have we been required to do that. SilkTork *YES! 22:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
and yet, none of you can monitor her own user talk page? She just created these three sections, aimed at me (remember the Plan ... no plague lists ... ) with a derogatory and false edit summary,[11] and unless you've done it privately (which seems counterproductive), no one yet has called her on it. I rest my case. I have no intentions of taking this back channel, where none of us knows if any of you are doing anything helpful. EVERY instance I have pointed out is on pages I have, and must because of my "job" as FA delegate, routinely followed for years, yet she continues to allege stalking and you all continue to overlook breaches of her plan posted to her own talk page. At a minimum, I would think her mentors would notice breaches of her plan on her own talk page, and this is more than once that she's done it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree that Mattisse has fairly proven all ArbCom complaints here on this page, just in one day. Very impressive. Furthermore, following a monumental cock-up GAR, I had an email exchange over several days with one of Mattisse's mentors. I was in turn furious, understanding, and provocative pleading and urging this editor to be proactive and confrontational when Mattisse exhibited disruptive behaviors and posts interpreting Wikipedia policy that no reasonable person could possibly claim to be true, and certainly not someone with over 5,000 edits, much less 50,000. I was told to stay away from Mattisse and that I should not provoke or confront her, after she decided to display some of the most incompetent understanding of GA criteria I have ever witnessed.
I did send this, however, in my last message sent on August 18: "By all of her mentors refusing to step in and tell her that she is wrong, you marginalize the efforts of good editors like ... and further reinforce the same problematic behavior. Why should she stop? None of her mentors have stepped in to say, 'Mattisse, no reasonable person could interpret policy this way. Participate in this discussion to improve the article or leave.' No one is taking a hard line to represent that there are issues beyond individual editors like Mattisse or me. I don't see any effort to reform disruptive behavior, just praise for neutral or good acts. That is simply not effective in any any psychological or pedagogical arena." (Ellipses for other users I named.) --Moni3 (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Moni3, sorry that you remain bitter about my comments about your GA Münchausen by Internet GA at the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 and felt that you had to post on my talk page berating me. [12] I was just one opinion. Others were free to disagree with me but they did not regarding the articles GAR status. I will dig out, if necessary, where you were uncivil and personally attacked me. And were asked by another editor to strike you uncivil comments, which you did not, as I recall. My way or the highway is not a good GAR strategy, nor is declaring your article is a GA in the face of opposition.[13] I gave you my suggestions.[14] Further, I was merely agreeing with Malleus[::::I merely agreed with Malleus.[15] I think you are once again descending to personal attack with the above "after she decided to display some of the most incompetent understanding of GA criteria I have ever witnessed" to characterize me. I think that is the kind of thing the ArbCom meant when they said "sniping" at me was occupying during the Arbcom, Moni3.

]—Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure bitter can quite accurately characterize the way I view you or my own actions. I am now deeply regretting I ever attempted to encourage any leeway during your ArbCom case. I considered my own anger at your preposterous posts that landed you at ArbCom to be as much a personal failing as it was your own astonishingly bad judgment. Call it what you will: idealism, optimism, or idiocy that I truly thought you would want to participate here to improve content and not use policy or review processes to pursue your personal and imaginary vendettas against other editors. You included me on your Torture list for your own reasons that only you can fathom. I don't know how you could possibly dig yourself further into the hole you're in, but listing all the times I have persecuted you will make it deeper. I didn't think I should have to remind anyone with your experience what GA criteria actually were, but I was wrong. So I should remind you that you have requested an admin post that you are retired. You continue to post here, very much like #6 in your ArbCom complaint. --Moni3 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say "bitter" characterizes your appearance from my point of view. Because I requested clarification of a legal statement in your Harvey Milk FA, you have posted against me at every opportunity and became, considering your involvement with me, overly emeshed in my arbitration. Now you have posted on my talk page and here because of one GAR that did not go your way. And I was not the decision maker on that GAR. I merely posted an opinion and you dragged to my personal talk page. I would say that is not neutral behavior. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
And I would appreciate no personal attacks, Moni3 as you did above. I know that you think I am fair game, but still. [16] —Mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the message is quite clear. If I dare to come back there is another Arbitration coming. I do not have the foresight or the will or the ability to collect diffs like Sandy does. As you can see, if I say anything, that is grounds for her collection. There is no way I can survive on Wikipedia in the future. She is using my talk page to start the arbitration. The wonderful world of Wikipedia. Where does assume good faith come in. Were my comments, posted above by Sandy and probably culled from 15,000 edits or so since the arbitration, really that bad (if you really do assume good faith? Why do they all have to do with FAR when YellowMonkey has had no complaints? Well, I am done for, obviously. Attack me, attack my panel, attack arbcom. If I did that I would be blocked all over again. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What AGF actually says: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. --Moni3 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that applies equally to you and SandyGeorgia. I think the arbcom saw that in your comments there. I am to blame for all the failures, bad feelings, lack of reviews, etc at FA, FAR, GA, GAR, as you both have made clear. Do you think driving me off of Wikipedia will solve all you problems? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
If it isn't inappropriate to offer a few words, experienced mentors often find it difficult to keep up with unexpected developments. This included a mentorship where the other two-thirds of the team included a steward and an administrator who later got elected to ArbCom. Things can happen quickly in wiki-time. It really does help to give a mentor a heads-up. Today, for example, my sole remaining mentoree got warned by two administrators for altering another person's posts. The actual problem was probably a ban-evading post by a sitebanned user, which neither of those administrators knew about and the mentoree did not know how to articulate. None of them thought to notify me. I left a followup message at the mentoree's user talk and have been debating whether it's worth the trouble to chase down both administrators. An ounce of prevention is usually worth a pound of cure in these situations. That might not help today's dilemma, but here's hoping it's useful in future. With respect extended toward all parties, Durova306 23:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I request that Moni3 withdraw or strike her personal attacks above. She has a history of personally attacking me on my own talk page as well as other places. e.g.[17] and refusing the requests of others to withdraw them.[18] —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's posts3

Posts about FAC :If the criteria were to encourage, rather than require, FA compliance, most people would still do it. The thing about forcing people is it creates a bad atmosphere, it's demoralizing, and it gives people the green light to nitpick, which not all reviewers do (most don't), but some do. Kirill, can you give an example of the kind of style thing that might be lost, wikiproject-wise.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4

You commented at the prior FAC and many issues have been resolved. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you started reading this one. Let me know if there is anything we can do to get your support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

About warnings

Hi Mattisse. Hope you're doing well. I noticed your question about warnings. For the most part, if you go to the person's contribs., at the top of the page you'll see a link to their "block log". I know it doesn't display what warnings are given, but it does give you an idea on what's going on a bit. In Mal's case, it was a smile and a joke that Jenna posted I think. Sometimes folks get a little silly after they've been here a while (and I'm just as guilty). It's all in the spirit of talking to folks, being friendly, and people who have gotten to know each other just having a little fun. There's probably a few editors that would frown on this type of behavior, but for the most part it's harmless. Just friends enjoying their time on Wikipedia. — Ched :  ?  01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is nice that blocks warnings are not to be taken seriously. Sorry to have caused you to reply. I should have known that in Mal's case it was a smile and a joke, as editors are not all treated equally, depending. I guess warnings are never to be taken at their face value. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you don't have to apologize to me for anything. I enjoy talking to the folks here ;). And it's a pleasure to meet you Mattisse! — Ched :  ?  02:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's just step back here for a minute Ched. All of a sudden I'm the one being castigated because of a joke that Jennavecia made on my talk page? How does that work exactly? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Back?

Hi, I hope you're back - so many editors appreciate your contributions to articles. If you think you're about to do something even slightly controversial, please check with one of your mentors first. If it looks like someone's trying to use you as a soft target, we'll warn them off. --Philcha (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get clear, unequivocal answers, here or elsewhere, to the following:
  1. Who is mentoring Mattisse at present?
  2. How do they view their role and commitment as mentors (briefly)?
  3. I don't doubt the willingness of some mentors to "warn off" people interacting with Mattisse. I'm more interested in what these mentors will do if Mattisse is using someone as a "soft target".
Any responses would be appreciated. MastCell Talk 07:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
All good questions. Suggest we put them on hold until we see if Mattisse is doing more than dipping a toe in the water. I think we all want her back (or most, anyway), hitting her with 1000 kg (bricks) might not be helpful right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the answer to any of MastCell's questions, but I want to join Philcha in hoping Matisse will rejoin the project and resume making the sort of outstanding contributions she has made in the past to so many articles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it great she's back?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be gauche, but I'm not going to be fobbed off quite that easily. I don't wish to hit anyone with 1000 kg of bricks, but given the relevant history, the people who have to deal with this situation deserve to have these questions answered as a minimal show of consideration. MastCell Talk 00:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Suggest you leave notes on the talk pages of the mentors. Left handed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother asking me MastCell; I quit the job when it became obvious that my advice was being completely ignored. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please consult User:Mattisse/Plan. However, I question having User:Malleus Fatuorum as a mentor/adviser. He was added after ArbCom approved the plan. Also, his history of joke blocks are difficult for me to understand. I cannot tell what is real and what is not, what is proper and what is not from his page, the profanity and insults. I do not want to continue to have to watchlist it and have to know all the stuff that goes on there. It gives me a poor impression of admins to see their jokes about blocks there. I need mentors/advisers who are clear on what is right and what is wrong. I don't want to feel stupid because I did not understand that his was a joke smiley block. Just like I don't get the joke in joke sockpuppets and why they are condoned as joke blocks are condoned. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, let me be brutally frank with you. I am sick to death of your continual efforts to reinvent your history. You asked me to be one of your mentors, and I was not "added after ArbCom approved the plan". You have learned nothing from your experience at ArbCom, and as a result it now seems to be inevitable that you will end up there again. I have washed my hands of your mentorship, as it has clearly been ineffective and directionless. Added to which Philcha's comment above about your mentors "warning other editors off" simply fills me with horror. It is you that needs to be warned off, not other editors; warned off from harbouring grudges and distrorting reality. Let's stop playing this "poor little me" game and try to get a grip on reality. I'm sorry to say that your mentors have done you no favours, and presently doing you more harm than good in my view. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop posting on my page. This is the eight "message banner" I have received from you in the last few minutes. Perhaps we are each equally glad to be rid of each other. I am glad not to watchlist your page and feel relieved. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, here's your ninth and last from me, at least for now. I have great respect for your article writing and copyediting skills, which is why I agreed, against my better judgement, to be one of your mentors, after you asked me. Against that though is your tendency to see enemies where none exist, to invent victimisation whenever it suits your purpose, and to pursue a policy of vendetta. I sincerely hope that your remaining mentors will at last find themselves able to address those ongoing issues. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I will post wherever I like Mattisse. Live with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I request again that you stop posting on my page. It feels intimidating. And it is not constructive. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, Mattisse, Central Supply wants those Retired banners back, if you aren't using them.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Why should the truth be intimidating? I do realise though that you've just come out of a two-week block, which I thought was overly harsh, and so I will respect your wish not to post on your talk page, at least for now. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

← To go back to the matter at hand, I would greatly appreciate a direct answer to my questions. Referring me to User:Mattisse/Plan doesn't help me, because it's not clear to me how much, if any, of that plan remains operative. Significant parts of it seem to have been overtaken by events. I don't think it's too much to ask for Mattisse to at least specify who her current mentors are, as a starting point. MastCell Talk 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your purpose is, but as suggested above, it might at this moment be more helpful if you read the ArbCom case and if still unclear, speak directly to the people mentioned in the plan you have been linked to. Those of us who agreed to sign up to the plan made it clear that it was Mattisse's decision as to when and how she contacted us for advice. None of us signed up to look over her shoulder, so if you want to get a response from somebody like myself, then my talkpage or my email would be the best place. I'm only here today to see if Mattisse has returned. I don't usually come here, and I dare say that is the case for most of the others. And if you do want to know more from me than what is given in the plan and was discussed during the case I would be interested in an explanation of your interest and your intentions because at the moment I am a little puzzled. SilkTork *YES! 16:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I've read the ArbCom case several times, but will re-read it at your suggestion. If I have a question for you, I will contact you on your talk page. At this point, I'm still struggling for an answer to my first question, so I haven't gotten that far.

Mentorship was proposed as an approach to address a pattern of problematic interactions. Following the most recent incident, it seemed to me that a) some of Mattisse's erstwhile mentors no longer wished to continue in that role, and b) members of the community in some cases had a very different conception of the mentorship process than did the mentors themselves.

In that context, it's no longer clear, to me at least, who Mattisse's remaining mentors are. It therefore seems reasonable to ask Mattisse directly. That would be a starting point to address the question of what can be done to prevent further distressing episodes, which is my interest here (to answer your query). The resistance to this first simple, direct question concerns me.

MastCell Talk 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, all the mentors/advisers who were originally designated per arbcom[19], and whose advice I trusted, are still willing to be mentors/advisers, with the possible exception of User:Ling.Nut who retired.[20] Please remember also that my RFC was closed due to inactivity. (See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive [21]. Arbcom meant to put the past to rest and focus on my behavior going forward. You may want to bring up more recent issues with my adviser/mentors. In the case of FAR, YellowMonkey would be the person to address. In the case of DYK, it would be Art LaPella. Both agreed in arbcom to take on that role. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very helpful. YellowMonkey at FAR, and Art LaPella at DYK. As I'm not able to know whose advice you currently trust, could you indicate which of the listed editors (Philcha, Fowler&fowler, Geometry Guy, RegentsPark, SilkTork, and John Carter) you still consider mentors? (I've left off Malleus and Moni3 for obvious reasons). And if I've missed anyone, please let me know. Thanks again. MastCell Talk 21:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, YellowMonkey, Art LaPella, Philcha, Fowler&Fowlder, Geometry guy, RegentsPark, SilkTork, John Carter and Salix alba. Ling.Nut if he is around. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll address the remaining questions to them. MastCell Talk 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am still willing to be a mentor. For some reason I missed the previous incidents which led to the block. So I don't really know quite how things escalated. We do need look at how the plan is implemented as it did not seem to be particularly efective the last time. I do have a question for Mattisse: What do you think could have been done to stop the previous problem flaring up? --Salix (talk): 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I used poor judgment and thought that I would make a point. I see so much joking going on it is hard for me to distinguish sometimes. I think a great deal would be gained by my dewatchlisting a variety of pages that seem to lead me astray and to think incorrectly. I get caught up in the wikidrama and general shenanigans and jokiness and forget that I am not really one of them. By the way, I am number 127 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/latest, so a very small number of my edits are problematic, and not any of them regarding article edits. I allow myself to be provoked and let other editors get under my skin. I am so glad to hear from you! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I truly don't understand how one can be "provoked" into creating sockpuppets. Mattisse, you really need to begin taking responsibility for your own choices. 14:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I also found this hard to understand, but have already expressed my disappointment in several places. Mattisse cannot undo her mistake, only try to learn from it: Mattisse frequently comments that she doesn't understand the system, what is a joke, what isn't, etc. etc.; this is no defense of inappropriate behaviour when she has so many mentors who have offered to advise her; I'm not aware of anyone being contacted in this case and I'd be surprised if any of us would agree that her creating sock accounts in an ironic critique of sock puppetry was a wise move.
However, I am not going to walk away from my offer to provide well-intentioned advice (time permitting) just because Mattisse did not seek it on this occasion. The whole thrust of the ArbCom remedy was to make Mattisse responsible for her own actions. I regard and have always regarded her mentors as a resource for her to call on to help her stick to her plan. If she doesn't make use of us, that's her problem, and she has to face the consequences. Fortunately, I don't need to say much more on this topic, as SilkTork has eloquently articulated a similar view here which I encourage anyone interested in this matter to read; in particular, this links to a key passage from the arbitration case. Mentoring was never intended as policing, and I've been disappointed that some editors comments have caused confusion in this respect. The community may decide in future that a more proactive policing role is necessary. I cannot personally be involved in such a role.
Rather, I would suggest to Mattisse that if she decides to return to extensive editing, then her plan needs to be tightened up a bit. I was already suggesting this before the arbitration closed, and raised it with her again early July. For instance, I believe it would be helpful to have a page, watchlisted by mentors, where other editors can draw attention to threads that are becoming stressful (either for Mattisse or other editors). Such a page should be wikilinked clearly from this talk page.
My view that mentoring is not policing has a flip-side, however: it isn't protection either. The post which started this thread has the wrong emphasis, and MastCell's response was understandable. In my spirit "warning off" other editors is not part of the mentoring role. For me the mentoring role is to help Mattisse protect herself, mostly from herself, but also to help her respond better to the challenges she faces. While I am not as filled with horror as Malleus is by the opening post, I firmly disagree with its tenor. Mattisse is, self-evidently, responsible for her own actions, and if she decides to continue to contribute here, she needs to appreciate that fact. Geometry guy 21:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Further to this, I hope that Mattisse's removal of the retirement notice a few minutes after my post reflects that she understands her responsibilities to the community and the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 22:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have such a page User:Mattisse/Monitoring. If my mentors/advisers deal with comments there, that would be great. Further, this is a quotation from my plan:

"

  • User:Art LaPella is willing to report to my adviser(s)/mentor(s) should I be disruptive at DYK. He has not seen any disruptive behavior on my part there.[22]
  • User:YellowMonkey says he does not put up with unruly behavior at FAR, so there are no worries there, I think.[23] He encourages me to participate in FAR.[24]

"

So FAR and DYK complaints should be directed at them. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am watchlisting it. A prominent and carefully worded hatnote on this page would encourage other mentors to do the same, and indicate to general editors that they can raise concerns about problematic interactions there. Geometry guy 22:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
As currently worded, it remains unhelpful: the page specifically states that it is for mentors and advisors, so there is still/as yet no place for other parties to raise concerns, except on Mattisse's talk, which multiple mentors have indicated they don't even follow. This has always been an alarming shortcoming in this plan. Other parties need a place to raise issues, other than Mattisse's talk. There is no reason for other parties to have to go to Art LaPella, YellowMonkey, or any particular mentor; the plan should have a central location for raising concerns, which all mentors should commit to watching. If they aren't watching something, how are they mentoring? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I'm surprised that you think Mattisse's mentors don't watch this page - I know it's on my watchlist as an automatic consequence of any post I make here, and I'd expect the same to apply to other mentors. PS I've also watchlisted User:Mattisse/Monitoring. --Philcha (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not what I *think*; it's what they *said*. But now that we've established that at least one of you is watching this page, perhaps you will call Mattisse's attention to the altered section heading she placed here on a post of mine, using my name three times, singling out my name in a section heading (a review of WP:TALK may be helpful, and restoring my post to the way I made it would also show good faith). Further, I'm wondering if you have anything to add about the fact that there is no place for other editors to raise concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I think it would be helpful to be more specific. "It's not what I *think*; it's what they *said*" is uninformative - in such cases I provide diffs / historical versions, or sometimes on the same page I quote the poster's name and the timestamp if it's in the same section. The same goes for "the altered section heading she placed here on a post of mine".
Re "the fact that there is no place for other editors to raise concerns" - there is and Mattisse has put a link to this in a hatnote in her Talk page. Do you have suggestions on how to present this information? --Philcha (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Philcha, at the risk of repeating myself *again*, by ignoring obvious concerns and issues that have arisen repeatedly, you do Mattisse a disservice. I must ask that you try to be more open-minded and less partisan in recognizing the problems and concerns, and put aside what appear to be your increasingly apparent issues with me so that you can better serve Mattisse. That page clearly says it is for mentors and advisors only, and there plainly was no provision put in place for other editors to raise concerns, it is abundantly plain that most mentors were not following Mattisse's talk, you have once again managed to change the subject and avoid answering the direct questions put to you, and it's utterly apparent that no mentor was aware of Mattisse's personalization of issues at GAR, FAR or on her talk page well before the socking incident. Asking for a plain procedure, where other editors can raise concerns that clearly all of the mentors missed, is entirely reasonable, and no, I am not going to give you diffs when I am on vacation, traveling, and currently have nothing more than a miserable slow dialup connection, which chugs for five minutes to just pull up my watchlist. Please try to attend to the obvious; mentors missed the past issues completely, others need a place to bring them that is watched by mentors, and expecting Mattisse herself to know when to contact her mentors is entirely unreasonable: if she knew when she was getting into trouble, presumably she wouldn't do it. Your approach, again, is not serving her best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I got mixed up re User:Mattisse/Monitoring, it's between Mattisse and her mentors - sorry.
So I suggest the place for others to raise concerns is here - editors who don't know the history but have concerns to raise would come here, and there's no point in having a separate "concerns" page for those who do know the history.
Re contacting Mattisse's mentors, User:Mattisse/Plan#Mentors_list lists them.
If you wanted to complain about anyone else, you'd have to provide specific references to the issue(s). Why should Mattisse be treated differently?
I don't have issues with you. I simply think you need to provide more information about any complaints or concerns you need to raise. Otherwise your points may be ignored because there other things to deal with, or time may be wasted on trying to deal with issues that do not have the normal level of definition and evidence. That's nothing personal, I'd ask anyone else to provide the same information. --Philcha (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to continue going in circles on Mattisse's talk page? Once again, past issues brought to this talk page were overlooked, not watched, not seen, or not addressed by "mentors", even when they occurred right on this page. In the interests of Wiki and Mattisse, will you (plural, mentors) or will you not address the obvious need for a place for raising concerns, so that Mattisse can be relieved of having all of us going back and forth on her talk page? And please, don't ask me to supply diffs when I've never seen you correct Mattisse's statements about other editors, that are made without diffs. The obvious need not be diffed; we had a very long thread on my talk about this very problem (that mentors weren't even watching Mattisse's talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
First, I'd like to say that I'm glad to see Mattisse back as well. Personally, I think maybe the best way to set up "complaints" or matters which others believe call for "monitoring" would be to place such comments on the Monitoring talkpage, leaving the main page for discussion with the "monitors", although that wouldn't necessarily preclude other parties adding comments to an existing discussion with the monitors on that page. And I can't be sure who else would want to do this, but I would encourage Mattisse to maybe contact one of us directly, either on our talk pages or through e-mail where available, if situations arise regarding matters of others in the future. That might help ward off such incidents in the future. John Carter (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I watch Matisse's page and have been following this latest round. Though, by nature, I prefer to stay away from drama, I must say that, in the form of a mea culpa (where is that pastor guy when you need him!), I failed to give Matisse proper mentor-ly advice during the sock and bishonen episode. The correct response would have been to ask Matisse to immediately apologize to bishonen and the community, to pipe down and take her medicine, and to live out the 2 week block. That, I didn't do, mostly because I was unaware that cabalism was grievously offensive (mistakenly believing that the charge had lost its bite after the end of the Cultural Revolution!). The only good piece of advice that I gave, and that I will reiterate here (though, I doubt if it will be followed), is to bear in mind that this is just a website and it is best not to get emotionally involved with what goes on here. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to see you editing again. I am insanely busy in real life at the moment, but please get in touch with me if you are feeling any stress regarding returning to Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Also glad to see you editing again, you certainly seem to me well able to make valuable contributions. As always, I plead ignorance and idleness for not following the goings on, but will be glad to help with anything that doesn't disrupt my wikisloth. All the best, dave souza, talk 20:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I am deeply appreciative. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Choor Singh

Just a reminder that you put this article on hold at WP:GAN on July 13, 2009. Comments were last made on the GA review on August 10, and the article has now been on hold for greater than two months, which is far too long to leave it on hold. Articles should not be on hold for longer than three weeks. I would recommend listing the remaining issues with the GA criteria on the GA review, closing it as a fail, and recommending that the editors renominate it again once it meets the criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Shanhua Temple was placed on hold by you on August 8, 2009. The last comments in the GA review were made on August 17, so that review is getting a bit old as well. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I have taken care of the latter. On the former, the editor is still travelling so I have asked him what he prefers. The article is basically ok but could do with improvements to meet GA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist

I've had that page watchlisted for some time, actually. One idea that does come up to me, however, is that, based on some of your comments regarding this recent matter and other previous ones, you don't seem to pay as much attention to a lot of the "political" aspects of the site, and tend to react to some of the "oddities" here when they do come to your attention. In the ArbCom, you said you had never read an arbcom page completely through. Recently, you said you weren't aware of Bishzilla being an alternate account, pretty much exclusively used for either jokes or occasional use of over-the-top, if occasionally less-than-polite, less-than-completely-serious, commentary. For someone who is as heavily involved in some of the most contentious matters we have here, GA and FA determination, this may not necessarily be to your advantage. I think it might be to your advantage to maybe read some of the wikipedia space pages a bit more frequently and thoroughly than you seem to have done to date, if for no other reason than doing so would make it easier for you to keep up with some of these irregularities, and that would probablhy be to your advantage. John Carter (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks to all my advisers/mentors. You all have responded as soon as you could after my block. I appreciate your watchfulness and will strive to learn from this experience. Thank you for your posts. I seek to learn and improve. Please inform me of any problems you see in my editing. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Image Discussion

An image that I uploaded for the Untitled (How Does It Feel) article a while back, File:UntitledMV.jpg, is being put up for deletion. Since u assessed the article for GA, do U mind adding some input on the matter? (see Discussion). Dan56 (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident‎

The above article has had its share of problems in the past. It is under Arbcom probation, yet its principal issue is one of WP:NPOV. A bunch of Falun Gong devotees took it over and have been guarding it have resisted all attempts at neutrality, and caused it to be delisted as WP:GA. I have recently been able to fight off the attack, reverted it first to its GA version. In the last 2 weeks, I have given it a significant rewrite. I intend to submit it for WP:FAC very shortly, and your help getting it there would be much appreciated. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Food rheology

Updated DYK query On September 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Food rheology, 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.
Shubinator (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for feuding

We know that you and Giano (and Giano's friends) don't like each other. Please take the high ground. Don't lobby against your past adversaries. Just go work on some articles instead. Jehochman Talk 12:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder

Hi Mattisse. I realize that edit summaries don't allow for a whole lot of elaboration, but I have to say I'm rather baffled about your removal of the religion statement. How is the assertion, "Depression may be less likely to occur, as well as quicker to remit, among those who are religious", not supported by a review article that states, "The literature suggests that those who are religious have a lower incidence of depressive symptoms/depression and that being religious may increase the speed of recovery from depressive disorder"? It seems to me that the former is merely a way of paraphrasing the latter. If the former appears to be flawed for some particular reason, could you please point out this reason and suggest a better way to frame the idea? As an aside, I remember that things got a bit tense during the FAC process on this article last year. I'd like you to know, however, that I respect you as an editor, harbour no ill feelings toward you, and do not mean to imply any sort of personal conflict with you over this quote; I'm simply trying to understand your rationale, so that I might properly respond to it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The cited article is not a review article nor a meta-analysis. It is only the article writer's opinion. There is no supporting evidence that this is a widely held view, that religion is a more important factor than marrital status, health status, financial status and a number of broad indicators. Even if religion and lack of Major depressive disorder are correlated, this is not proof of a causal relationship, nor that it stands above other correlated factors. You need more than one article "suggesting" this to incorporate the information into the introductory paragraph of a summary article. I am not the only editor who has thought that the inclusion of this is inappropriate. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the cleanup work at Margaret Harshaw. That was very helpful.Singingdaisies (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I meant to post on your page that I nominated it for Template talk:Did you know under September 23, and to ask you if you have any suggestions for hooks. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request?

Hey Mattisse, I know that you are busy with Nikita Krushchev, but when you are done would you be able to copyedit North Carolina-class battleship for an eventual FAC? Thanks and cheers, —Ed (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to try, knowing that I have no special knowledge of battleships! It is a little confusing, on looking at the article, why two ships are included in the North Carolina class, the other being the Washingtonian which seems to be discused more (on first glance). Anyway, I will look through the article, as long as you are aware of my limitations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks muchly. The reason that two ships are included is noted at ship class; should this be explained more in the lead? I thought I had explained it well enough, but evidently not :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a brief statement for those of us not familiar, especially if you are considering FAC. It would help clarify. I guessed it was something along those lines, but the confusion prevented me from getting beyond the intro, and you want the article to be assessable to the general reader. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I can do that. I've got to go for now, but I will do it as soon as I am on next. Please ping me if you have any questions, concerns, or whatever while going through it. Thanks a lot! —Ed (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

1963 film

See [25]. The film is a 1963 film but like most films is subject to an award ceremony the following year like the Oscars. So just because it won an award in 1964 doesn't make it a 1964 film. I hope this is clear. Himalayan 19:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the source says the award is for 1964. I considered leaving out 1964 in film. Can you fix it so the sources and the hook say the same thing? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Transclude review

There is no need to transclude GA Reviews after they are done, they are already prominently linked, and bolded, at the top of the page. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it wrong to do it? I like to read new reviews and so I track down ones that are not viewable, as there is no link at the top of the page until the bot does the article history. You are saying I should stop, that it is wrong? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lost pages

11 pages of yours showed up on Wikipedia:Database_reports/Ownerless_pages_in_the_user_space from back when you changed your username. I moved them all to your user space. You should be able to find them all in my contributions but if you need a list let me know. Some of them you had created new pages with the same names, I moved them over and restored all edits after the move over so your pages may be a little wacky with merged page histories and it's possible you'll find something you thought was deleted has been restored. If this causes any serious issues by way of material that you didn't want restored, let me know - preferably with a link to the diff. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom note

Hi Mattisse, I noticed that you added a diff to some of your previous statement (thank you for your efforts to find diffs - I think that is really helping people to understand your point of view). It might be best to create a new section for that or at least put a signature with a timestamp next to the diff; arbitrators might not notice the addition otherwise. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed that you misread my newest remarks regarding your statements. Please read again, and you will see you are misrepresenting them. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

I have determined that it is highly disruptive for you to mention sock-puppets in any form, joke blocks, Bishonen, Giano or George, either directly or indirectly. Consider this a final warning that mentioning any of these subjects anywhere on wikipedia without prior approval of your mentors may result in adverse consequences for your ability to edit. Hipocrite (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, I would suggest not responding to Hypocrite here, or indeed anywhere. Problem also a good idea to hold your tounge on all matters relating to Giano. --Salix (talk): 18:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning to Hipocrite

Hipocrite, you have been warned previously about your repetitive and increasingly strident attitude on this page [26] so you are already well aware of the disruption you will cause with this unsubstantiated and deliberately provocative confrontation. The advice you were given was "if you have a complaint you can describe concisely and neutrally, with relevant diffs or other links, the new monitoring format should be up & running early next week (see ArbCom). Or you could add a statement to the current ArbCom Clarification. Or at AN/I". Please could you either desist or follow that advice. Please do not continue to provoke Matisse. As instructed (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Beaver Creek (Alaska)

Updated DYK query On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beaver Creek (Alaska), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
— Jake Wartenberg 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User sub-page concerns

The Monitoring page does not seem to be functional yet, and I am unsure whether this is recent enough for inclusion there anyway. I was looking for the archives for the Monitoring page and went to Special:PrefixIndex (Mattisse) and was surprised to see such a large number of subpages. Out of curiosity, I looked through them, and found quite a number that appear to violate the ArbCom principle Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Unnecessarily_divisive_behavior, which, among other things, discourages compilation of public lists of grudges or opponents other than the reasonable assembly of evidence for legitimate dispute resolution purposes. This is a behavior that you pledged to stop after your ArbCom case. A great many of these pages appear to be leftovers from 2006/2007, and I suspect that you may have forgotten about them. As these incidents are long resolved, and there appears to be no need for, or move towards, any dispute resolution, I request that you have these pages deleted as soon as possible. (You can either put a speedy deletion tage on them or ask one of your mentors to delete them for you; I would also do so if you request.) These are the pages that are old and appear to be only collections of diffs/statements that are not being used for dispute resolution purposes:

Subpages deleted subsequent to this discussion (collapsed by Geometry guy)

These pages have been maintained since the Arbcom decision (some within the last few weeks), which concerns me.

I request that these please be deleted if not being used for legitimate dispute resolution, and I request that your mentors discuss with you the purpose of the more recently-edited pages and whether this is an appropriate use of them. Karanacs (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Do you consider the last edit for User_talk:Mattisse/other7b on 28 July 2009 within the last few weeks? What about User:Giano/Things to remember. Am I not allowed the same? I don't know how to keep links and other things that I want to remember? I used the links in some of those boxes just in the last few days. How do people maintain their collections of links? Some of that information I still need and some of those boxes can go. Where is the rule on what is allowed? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you get rid of sub-pages that are over 1 year old, then we can look at the rest. BTW I was amused to see one of my comments linked at User:Giano/Things to remember :-) --Philcha (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, looking through them is very useful to me. Must I get rid of the old? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, you can privately tell your mentors what browser you use, and have them teach you how to set up subfolders in your bookmarks or favorite places or whatever your browser calls them, and then as you delete things, you can just bookmark them off-Wiki on your browser. This is another one of those things I've never understood why they didn't teach you, as you've expressed this frustration before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been told to make folders. John Carter says he has hundreds. However, it does not work for me. My browser only holds so many and they they fall off. I have no means of keeping track of things, diffs and such, except to hunt them down over and over again. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Then move them to Word documents on your hard drive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not have Word documents. I only have notepad and that does not hold wiki markup. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Then e-mail diffs to yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is irritating. What browser are you using? Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this really needed? Mattisse has had a recent request for clarification, and there are indications that others feel there should be additional arbcom actions. I see no trouble with her keeping information in the event of further disputes. Still, Mattisse, best to keep them off wiki once you figure out a way, that way no one can peek! I also wonder how "public" something is that you really, really, REALLY have to search intensively to find.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • <edit conflict> Firefox. I know how to make folders and bookmarks. But my browser could never hold hundreds. It only holds maybe twenty or thirty folders and those go to web page bookmarks. Wikipedia is very hard to bookmark in the way links can be keep on subpages. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Go to each of the pages that you care about. Go to "file" then "Save Page As…" Save the page wherever you want on your drive. Repeat this for each page. Then you have a copy you can keep forever and ever, with no one the wiser. You can gaze at them, in all of their glory, at your leisure. Hipocrite (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Hipocrite! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Or, more easily, just right click in Firefox. The menu that will come up includes "Save page as"--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this has gone off-topic. While it's interesting to see how other manage their ammunition dumps, Mattise simply should not be holding records of things that happened more than a year ago. Almost anything that on WP over 1 year ago wasn't matter, and certainly is less important than enjoying to-day and the the day after,etc. And if any of these old issues does happen to be genuinely important, you'd remember well enough any way without on-wiki or offline records. You'll better off without 99.99% of these old grievances. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes its well worth clearing out the old junk. Certainly pages like User:Mattisse//Geo2 refer to past events which are much better forgotten. --Salix (talk): 22:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I have requested that all but the last three (that have some relevant links in them) to be deleted. It has been an interesting read and showed me some past connection that make sense in view of todays politics on wikipedia. Very interesting. I believe Giano, in the spirit of this endeavor, should not be allowed th mantain User:Giano/Things to remember, though it is a kick to read. I can see why wikipedia is losing editors. It is very tough going here. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You have a point. Are arbs emails available onsite (I mean, the actual emails, not just the email function)? If they are not, Giano should not be hosting personal info regarding arbs. He can keep people's emails in his blackberry or moral equivalent.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
In case you have not noticed, "rules" that apply to me do not apply to Giano. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I've left a note on Giano's talk page and expect those who expressed similar concerns here to be behind me. And no, I don't mean behind me and running in the opposite direction!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that! Many would not have dared. We will see what happens, whether there are "rules" on wikipedia that apply to all. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't do Wikiprojects, I don't do cliques, I'm my own boss here on WP, and if Giano gives me a problem (and I'm sure he has this page watchlisted) I'm not going to respond, I'll just take it to MfD, and whatever they do with it is fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do I complain about you holding grudges? Why are you deflecting your bad behavior on to Giano? Where do you, exactly, get off saying that rules don't apply to Giano? How many times has he lied about his grandchildren socking for him to harass people he dislikes? You want to talk about holding grudges? Where's my apology? Hipocrite (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You can complain at [[27]]. But do the "rules" apply to him. I frankly do not understand the statement, as applied to me: "These pages have been maintained since the Arbcom decision (some within the last few weeks), which concerns me." Is Giano allowed to publically post the email addressed of arbcom member? These are all emperical questions. I do not know the rules. I deleted all my files as requested, but it seems like Giano's file fall under the same rule. Am I wrong? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that you stop caring about how the rules are applied to others, especially those you have had disputes with in the past, and care only about how the rules are applied to you. Again, how many times has he lied about his grandchildren socking for him to harass people he dislikes, exactly? Until you get off how other people are treated, I'm going to keep bringing this up till I see my abject apology.Hipocrite (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
::Sorry. you can complain at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Please do pile on, as it is obvious that my tenure at wikipedia is about to come to an end, ironically mostly based on Geogre and Giano who have been very minor blips in my editing career. But I understand that the rules of wikipedia although unbaised, in practice will favor Geogre and Giano, sockpuppets by admins and others; such things that I do not understand. I am not completely stupid, although very near. Do what you will to protect those that you feel right in protecting. How may times have my grandchildren been implicated. A few times in 2006, as I recall. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not holding grudges. Giano continues to post on my talk page and on the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification among othters. Mostly, I ignore his posts, so I don't consider that I am "holding grudges". I would appreciate it if he would stop making posts about me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, please stop repeating grumbles about G & G.
Hipocrite, you've become repetitious and increasingly strident. If you have a complaint you can describe concisely and neutrally, with relevant diffs or other links, the new monitoring format should be up & running early next week (see ArbCom). Or you could add a statement to the current ArbCom Clarification. Or at AN/I. However, I seriously suggest you switch off your tape-recording here. --Philcha (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I just noticed this, and it seems to me simply more of the "shoot the messenger" mentality that pervades these issues. Please focus on mentoring Mattisse (1 line of your previous post), and less on lecturing Hipocrite (multiple lines of your previous post). UA 16:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it is ok for Giano to expose the email addresses of the arbitrators, as he does on User:Giano/Things to remember, as well as what could be consider "gudge" links regarding me, using my name? Do you think it is ok for me to be forced to remove any pages that could be seen as such, but he is allowed to retain his, according the the rules Karanacs has set forth above, that the links on a userspace page should only be for dispute resolution, and to not show recent activity? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you should focus on you, not on Giano. I'll not discuss him anyn further on this page. It's simply a distraction from what you need to be focusing on right now. UA 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you think rules only apply to me and not Giano? What is your interest in this? I deleted all my pages as requested. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This issue is about you, and not anyone else. My interest in this is how your mentor Philcha treated Hipocrite in the exact same way he treated me when I raised an issue about your behavior. It's not acceptable. UA 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, a few clarifications, since you obviously want to malign me. The Arbs email addresses to which you so object are a simple copy paste from here [28] so get your facts straight and if you don't like take it up with the Arbs who put them there. Secondly, it is quite in order to collect diffs that are more than likely to be used in an arbitration case. I suggest you behave yourself, and stop dragging in the names of people desperate to avoid you. Quite what your mentors are doing at the moment one can only imagine, but it's certainly not effective mentoring! Giano (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you, Mattisse, for your prompt response. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is hard to compose myself when I and my mentors are being harassed on my talk page. I am wondering if your "rules" as stated above about my userspace pages, e.g. just used for dispute resolution and not have recent activity, apply to others also, or just to me. You never did provide me with documentation regarding the issue. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I provided a link to the documentation above Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Unnecessarily_divisive_behavior. Please be sure that you read all of the posts so that you do not ask for information that has already been provided. Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I can't read all my posts, as one message banner may mean one or eight posts. Sorry. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, not reading all of your posts can only lead you to frustration or misunderstanding. You can always review threads on your talk page, or step back through the diffs to see what you may have missed. I sometimes miss posts on my talk, so my habit is that when I see the orange bar, I read that post, and then I step backwards through the diffs to make sure I didn't miss a previous post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of ways to handle it. I often click the "hist" button (for my talk page, on my watchlist) when I have a new message. Geometry guy 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea - much better than slogging through the actual posts trying to figure out which ones are new. Especially since most of them are downers anyway. Most posts I would just as soon not receive, sad to say. How to discourage posts on my page? I wish I had the nerve to just archive my page and put an end to it, like you did. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Users have some latitude in the editorial control of their user and user talk pages. There are several ways you can manage this. For one, your user talk page is about communication between you and other editors, so should remain focused on this. If you are really keen on drawing other editors attention to the signpost, centralized discussion, articles tagged for deletion and rescue, RfAs and Peer reviews, then by all means keep them here. However, they may distract editors from the main point, which is that this talk page is for communication with you. Some of these links might better be placed on your user page (or a subpage).
If you have some expectations of posters here, state them in the preamble to this page. For example many editors (Sandy and myself included) value direct links to issues raised. Asking for them doesn't guarantee we'll get them, but it improves the odds.
Editors will not always respect your wishes, but you have to be as courteous as you can in response. It is rare for me to close a discussion on my talk page: I've done so twice in recent memory, in both cases to stop the escalation of a disagreement on my talk page, which I would like to be a place for de-escalation. Sandy has recently requested a similar drawing of a line on her talk page here and that is admirable in my view. Any action like that requires courtesy and respect for all involved to be successful: if editors understand your good intentions, they are more likely to respect your wishes. Geometry guy 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestions. I find editors generally disrespect my page and my wishes, which is probably my fault. I can take only so much chatter. I think staying away from FAC and all related pages will help considerably. I have no idea how these various editors, with whom I have never had any direct contact, find their way here. Must be the IRC or some other form of communication that they spread the word. I just try not to respond. But it is discouraging and very unpleasant. Wikipedia's meta-problems are becoming very apparent to me. No wonder editors are being driven away! I do think the solution is to stay away from FAC and FAR, from where all trouble seems to spring. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm always glad if any suggestion of mine proves helpful. Concerning your response, Wikipedia, like most of human life, is full of unpleasantness and problems, but at least withdrawing from Wikipedia is slightly less fatal. You are learning to stay away from comments, places, and issues which trouble you. However, that means you should not make metacomments either. Editors come to your talk page for several reasons: you are a prolific and frequent editor, so you will appear on the watchlists of many; the controversies surrounding you are well known, and many editors will have an opinion on them. There is no reason to invent conspiracies on IRC or elsewhere to explain it. Such speculation, and also your sweeping assertion that all trouble seems to spring from FAC and FAR, is contrary to your plan, and you should not post such comments here or anywhere on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. Point well taken. I'm trying to see things in perspective. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Personally, I think you are well within your rights to archive this page. A point was raised about your sub-pages, you agreed that they should be deleted, they were deleted, nothing more to look at. You did ask a question about GiacomoReturned's subpages, but that has been answered by that editor. If leaving this, or any other, material on this page bothers you, Mattisse, then you should go ahead and archive it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey articles

Howdy Mattisse. Haven't I seen you on hockey articles, years ago? GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I nay have don some copy editing of hockey articles, but it is not a subject that I amd familiar with. I can do only general copy articles on such articles. Regards,—Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ahklun Mountains

Updated DYK query On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ahklun Mountains, 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! Did you know its one week to Halloween, will you be there? Victuallers (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Socks

Hi Mattisse. I'm here to offer an apology and explanation regarding my post at Risker's page. It is clear that As Instructed is a sock of someone. Clearly I do not know whose sock it is. The single edit probably isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but that would rather depend on who that was. If it was you, the implication are grave. If it was one of your mentors, perhaps less severe. If it's someone unknown to us all and they're just playing silly buggers, then 'shrug' who cares. I've done my best today to assume the best, and I've had a really good look at it with fresh eyes.

Yesterday, as the the sock was quoting Philcha, it seemed possible that Philcha had been using an alternative account and responded to hypocrite having forgotten to log into his Philcha account. That possibility isn't evidence, and whilst I don't apologise for thinking it, I do apologise for saying it before I'd had a really good hard think and look at the evidence today. I can find no evidence that it is you or any of your mentors and I apologise for any distress I may have caused, particularly to Philcha. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your post[29] on Risker's page was unfortunate, as was much of the dialogue that followed on her page. I do not think that spreading the arbitration problem to many pages is helpful. Risker's responses were not reassuring to me. I'm glad you have ended your quest. All too many people are willing to air my dirty linen. Thank you for desisting further. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Chasewc91

I would like to know how to handle this problem. This user, Chasewc91, has been using Allmusic as a source for the genre section in the infobox of several album articles. The genre classification by the website, while sometimes helpful, is not accurate in many cases. For example, subgenres are included, and in the case of 808s & Heartbreak, inaccurate, calling the album hip hop when even critics and the album's artist have said it is not. What to do wit dis fool? Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

More sockpuppets

Just a heads up: Literaturegeek suspects I am a sockpuppet of you, but I don't know why. See my talk page. (This is the third time I've been accused of sockpuppetry by this user.) Mutual monarch (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

On what basis are you accused of being my sockpuppet. Indeed, this is getting very nasty. Well, you should be cleared as you are not. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Matisse, see your post to me, "I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. See User talk:Mutual monarch." The logic of sockpuppet accusations is that you ignore them:

  • If you were, which I'm not suggestng you are, you would say nothing because your opponent(s) would disbelieve a denial and would regard a denial as a incentive to press on.
  • If none, you have no need to risk getting in a fight. Either they fold or they request Checkuser. In this hypothetical scenario, it returns negative. You should not make a scene, just remember who apologise and who did not (but no on-wiki notes). --Philcha (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC) (ce Philcha (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
So it is possible just to stick those accusations on someone's page and leave them there? There doesn't seem to be any attempt at an investigation. It seems more of a harassment technique. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I agree with Philcha: since you know you're innocent, just ignore them completely. It's good for the investigations to continue, since they will exonerate you and possibly uncover other socks, but when you know you're innocent, there's no reason to let it trouble you or even got involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
SilkTork is looking into it and has offered help to User talk:Mutual monarch. Thank goodness. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Philcha I am not looking for a fight with anyone and mattisse I am not trying to harass you. To the contrary when we had a brief bumping of heads several months ago I specifically said to the admin investigating, mastcell not to involve you as I did not want you to get any grief over a transient disagreement. I did ask mutual monarch to explain this,User_talk:Literaturegeek#Sockpuppet_tags but I have gotten no answer. I notice that this account, User_talk:Mattisse#Warning_to_Hipocrite has contributions to articles for deletions. A couple of the other accounts that I also have doubts about also have an edit history to articles for deletions and reasons to suspect that they were not newbies when they started the accounts. There are several reasons which I can list if requested why I think thought that the account is yours but I would like a response to this following question. If mutual monarch (or other accounts) are not you mattisse, is it possible that someone is trying to make editors such as myself think that it is you in order to cause you grief? After reading the talk page of User talk:As instructed and User_talk:Risker#Quandary just before posting this message to you this possibilty occured to me. If this is the case then I don't want to fall for their games and wrongly cause you any drama so I think discussing this with you first rather than going gun hoe into a SPI is the best option. If I am wrong I will apologise as well. I just want to get to the bottom of this, I wish no malice towards you. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, am I right in assuming you did a lot of work to british royalty articles? I wonder if the mutual monarch name was chosen to make it look like it was you using sockpuppet? Just a thought, might be nothing at all. After talking to user Silktork, I am believing now that it was not you behind the sockpuppet(s), so I apologise to you for any distress caused, I just want to get to the bottom of who is using mutual monarch and what accounts I need to apologise to etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Literaturegeek - please see my apology to Mattisse above. Whilst it is certain that As Instructed is an alternative account of someone, it is clearly not that of Mattisse or her mentors, the editing pattern and times don't fit. I regret shooting my mouth of earlier this week, and am troubled this has stirred up further antagonism to Mattisse. Please take this elsewhere as you are barking up the wrong tree. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
There are two trees I was barking up if you read my message and I now do not believe mattisse is responsible, so I don't quite understand your response. Jooper, please see my apology to mattisse before your message. The conversation has moved to my talk page. I shall not respond here anymore. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
To User:Literaturegeek, no I have not done work on British royalty articles. To Joopercoopers, this is an outcome of spreading issues about my arbitration thither and yon to the pages of others, such as Risker's, and her unfortunate decision to let unfounded accusations stay there for others to read. Although you asked her to archive it, [30] she has not. This arbitration clarification has turned into a huge mess that is a credit to no one except my mentors/advisers who are attempting to step up to the plate and cool it down. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I was refering to the Buckingham Palace; maybe should have said FA review rather than work. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. I consider that an architecture article rather than an article on British royalty. None of this has anything to do with you accusations of sockpuppets. Working or reviewing that article should not have opened me up to sockpuppet charges. You said above that you would not respond any more on this page and I wish you would stick to your word. You have now posted 12 times on my page regarding this issue. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

List

Mattisse, is this a good idea? Fainites barleyscribs 18:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I must prepare for User:Giano/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Are you saying it is not a good idea to do so? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
In this case I agree with Fainites:
  • "Torment" lists is one of the behaviours disallowed by your ArbCom list and you should any delete right now. Such lists also distract you from what most of your mentors have often advised - focus on the content, not the personalities.
  • Don't worry about User:Giano/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. If he creates an actual ArbCom requests:
    • There's no need for any list about Giano, he generously spreads evidence against him all over the place.
    • I think his recent aggression against you at your Talk page and at ArbCom/.../Clarification will mostly likely make Giano's case against you be dropped before it starts, or to be closed swiftly with sharp criticism of Giano's conduct.
    • If it came to an actual case, your best defence is to keep calm and courteous, starting now. If you behave as I've just advised and Giano continues to spread attacks all over the place, it will be short and unpleasant for Giano. --Philcha (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The specific diff Fainites referred to[31] I want to keep as it is a September, 2008 diff that began the whole problem and took me a long time to find. The torments list was a spontaneous list and I can never remember the names on it. It now has become reified through constant repetition, although it was never used again. I need a way of keeping track of the names, as it is implied that those on the list are being constantly harassed by me. However, I can remove it. I can remove the Giano diffs as I have now used them in the arb situation, I believe. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec and probably redundant) I agree with Philcha. While it may seem to be prudent to prepare for an arbcom case that someone is setting up, it is almost always better to stay above the fray. Each and every negative comment or action that an editor makes, whether it seems justified or not, will come back to haunt that person. I know it is hard to ignore and not react to charges, insults, barbs, or what have you, but it is always better to either completely ignore them or, only if it is essential, to respond politely. (Note to self: make use of this maxim!) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I just want to keep the one diff that Fainites objected to. I am in the process of entering the other two into the arbitration clarification, if I cannot keep them on the page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I second the comments from those above. These lists have always been problematic and have been the cause of much aggravation directed at you. The problem is that the lists are in the public domain, every time you add something to them a couple of dozen people see instantly what you have done. If someone want to attack you you have helpfully provided them with yet more ammunition.

The only solution I can see is to take the lists off the wiki, so they are private not public. Make a word document, or notepad or something just don't leave this stuff hanging around where everyone can see. --Salix (talk): 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)]

I do not have Word document and Notepad does not save wiki formatting. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the list immediately when requested above.Current revision as of 19:51, 27 October 2009 Since most of the people on it I have had no voluntary contact with, the list is meaningless. But I have removed it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Mattisse. A wise move. Fainites barleyscribs 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse, nothing to do with lists (!!!) but I notice your comment that you do not have MS Word. You might find Open Office useful, and it's free. The only requisite is that you'll have to download Java (software platform) first, but that's also free. I'm gradually converting to Open Office. For word processing, I suggest you save Open Office documents as Rich Text Format - this is one of the options when save a document. RTF files can be shared both ways between Open Office's Writer and MS Word. Open Office's Writer is less sophisticated, probably about where MS Word was in the early 1990s - but that is plenty enough for most purposes, including sending letters. --Philcha (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll think about it. But it is probably too complicated for me to get involved in. I never liked MS Word on my WindowsMe and I am just as glad to be rid of it and its excessive markup. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I also dislike MS Word - it is a crude word processing programme. I held onto my WordPerfect for as long as I could, but as Word users could not read WordPerfect (though WordPerfect could read Word) I found it difficult to send out copy to editors. For a while I ran both systems - but that just became silly. SilkTork *YES! 22:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor request

I was thinking of nominating Gin Tama to GA, but I'm concerned about the prose. Could you take a look at it? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll go through it and change a few things. You are always free to revert anything I do. Looking at it quickly, the prose seems quite good! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Take your time.Tintor2 (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Salmon River photo

Thanks for all the photos you've added to articles. However, I reverted your addition to Salmon River (Clackamas County, Oregon) as that photo is on the coast, and the article is inland, near Mount Hood. —EncMstr (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I was going to add it to Salmon River (Lincoln County, Oregon) but that article is so short that I don't think it can hold another picture right now. It only needs to be expanded a bit to make room though. Katr67 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
You probably should grab it, as once it is moved to the Commons you may not be able to find it again. (This has been my experience, anyway.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Brooks Range Mountains.jpg

File:Brooks Range Mountains.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Brooks Range Mountains.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Brooks Range Mountains.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Part of Cayo del Oso Creek which empties into Corpus Christi Bay.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Part of Cayo del Oso Creek which empties into Corpus Christi Bay.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Viewing man-made canals in the marsh in Louisiana, Barataria Basin.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Viewing man-made canals in the marsh in Louisiana, Barataria Basin.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Shrimp, snapper, grouper, and stone crab fishing boats at Cortez, Florida.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Shrimp, snapper, grouper, and stone crab fishing boats at Cortez, Florida.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Historical marker for fishing village of Cortez, Florida.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Historical marker for fishing village of Cortez, Florida.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Brooks Range Mountains.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Brooks Range Mountains.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Part of Cayo del Oso Creek which empties into Corpus Christi Bay.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Part of Cayo del Oso Creek which empties into Corpus Christi Bay.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Viewing man-made canals in the marsh in Louisiana, Barataria Basin.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Viewing man-made canals in the marsh in Louisiana, Barataria Basin.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Shrimp, snapper, grouper, and stone crab fishing boats at Cortez, Florida.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Shrimp, snapper, grouper, and stone crab fishing boats at Cortez, Florida.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
File:Historical marker for fishing village of Cortez, Florida.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Historical marker for fishing village of Cortez, Florida.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Something complete different

Hi, Mattisse. I'd be appreciate it if you could tell me whether Dragon's Egg is incomprehensible. I'm not asking for a review or a copyedit, I really mean "whether Dragon's Egg is incomprehensible" - the novel is the hardest of hard science fiction, and IMO even a plot summary of this needs some scientific explanation. You may be asking "My me?" Answer: I want to see if the article can be made comprehensible to a good editor who is not a hard science fiction fan. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is "comprehensible", given that I have to accept that the facts are hard science and so presumably the plot is feasible. It oddly doesn't say much about the "human" point of view regarding these events. But I sounds like an interesting premise for a book. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the focus is on the cheela, although humans accelerated the tech development of cheela, first by inadvertmently stimulated their interest in religion, astronomy and writing, and then by sending messages to the cheela. Thanks for the reassurance that my account of the book is comprehensible. --Philcha (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I've read the book. The plot description is accurate and understandable. You might want to mention that the cheela observed the human spacecraft, with their beliefs of its nature evolving. I've never felt the plot involving the humans was anything more than a vehicle for Forward to get to the cheela, and it is correctly omitted. Forward wrote much better aliens than people, always.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
One thing, if I recall correctly, it was not the humans who recognized the arena as an artifact, it was their computer programs focused on the star. I'm a SF fan who is not particularly a hard SF fan (I enjoyed Hal Clement's books) but I enjoyed Rocheworld and eventually read most of Forward's works, liking some, not liking some.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
That fits in with what I know of the plot by Philcha. It seems that the humans were emotionally disengaged in the plot. Perhaps that represents how we actually do deal with all things outer space. My radio at night tells me that aliens are among us, but that the human populace is not ready to accept such news! The book sounds like interesting reading. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Forward was probably the best hard SF writer behind Hal Clement (and Dragon's Egg owes a lot to Mission of Gravity). Once you get past the rather lengthy setup (and I think there were two versions of the novel, one with a much longer discussion of how the mission was staffed), what goes on with the cheela is very understandable. And if I remember correctly, he explains most of the scientific concepts and so forth in an afterword. I don't read much SF these days, most of the authors who I liked are dead or inactive and I've added very few replacements.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Or perhaps we're just getting older :-( --Philcha (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC comments?

Hey Mattisse, would you be interested in looking at Not One Less if you have free time and commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Not One Less/archive1? It's been at FAC for almost two weeks and I haven't gotten any comments or criticism yet, even after messaging a few movie-ish people. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Added my two cents. Very nice article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse report

Would you please read over User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report and confirm (or otherwise) that you are content for this to be given as the requested report to ArbCom. SilkTork *YES! 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Antarctic Sea ice

Hi Mattisse. Just noticed you have added a picture to West Antarctica and Amundsen Sea. It is a nice picture but I'm not sure it adds much to these articles. Also technically the caption is incorrect because it is an iceberg and not sea ice. thanks Polargeo (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, it is an iceberg. There are no pictures in either article that give the sense there is actually ocean. However, you are free to remove the image if you do not like it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There is so little in the articles that I think they can take a nice picture and it does give more of a sense of the place. A bit of WP:WikiFairying here and there is a good thing. Polargeo (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Yellow-band disease

Updated DYK query On November 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yellow-band disease, 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.
SoWhy 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Xanadu Houses

Saw your question re: the sources in this article. We've been discussing this again, take a look. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:Xanadu Houses. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Very good argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ice Cave photo

I have removed your photo from Ice cave, as it does not depict an ice cave. You might consider reposting your photo in Glacier cave, although that short article already has two photos. Ian mckenzie (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you reposted that photo under Glacier cave as recommended. But the caption was still wrong, so I have corrected that - which is tricky, because the erroneous term is also embedded within the file name, and I see that it is not your photo. Ian mckenzie (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a NOAA photo and I got the title from the NOAA site.[32] —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Madrepora oculata

Updated DYK query On November 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Madrepora oculata, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

James Joyce

Mattisse, this article was just getting worse and worse, so I reverted to the last reviewed version. This means some citations, and your tagging, were lost in the revert, but I don't want to start resurrecting citations until we see if the revert holds. If it does hold, I'll try to recover lost citations, and then your cite needed tagging may be needed again, but I'm going to give it a few days to see if the revert holds. I just thought that the article had taken on so much cruft that the older version was better. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

Thank you for notifying me. I am happy to wait and see if the revert holds before any retagging of unsourced material. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll probably give it until mid- to late next week to decide whether to work on recovering anything of value lost in the revert. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Laguna Ojo de Libre

Updated DYK query On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Laguna Ojo de Libre, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
— Jake Wartenberg 23:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Mexico.jpg

File:Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Mexico.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Mexico.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Mexico.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Neville Chamberlain

I got it passed at GAN, next step is a peer review. As I only just finished writing the darn thing, there is still some sawdust and debris around that could use your help to deal with. I intend to take it to FAC perhaps by the end of the month, no doubt Fifelfoo won't like it but I can't help that. There are probably more bios on this guy than any other prime minister, except Churchill.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when it is done with peer review. I am no longer keen on copy editing for FAC, but will consider "you"! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Probably wise (and thank you). There are rumblings that the article is a bit long. We'll see what is left when it comes out of PR. It's all how you look at things. Chamberlain was not particularly distinguished as PM, but his tenure was notorious and so he is a subject of intense interest. Note that the GA nomination got snatched from the bottom of the list. Henry Campbell-Bannerman, he's not.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
And Nixon, Khrushchev, Chamberlain have something in common. They all reached the top, and then fell precipitously. Having had one or two life experiences like that, I guess I feel sympathy.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm just sick of all the editors talking about "my articles". I am thinking that FAC encourages an unhealthy attitude on Wikipedia that some editors are better than others because they collect trophies. I am feeling unwilling to contribute to all of that. Copy editing is low man on the totem pole. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
If you hunt down the wild beast at considerable risk to yourself, you are darn well entitled to display the head on a plaque in the den!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't work that way. People consider WP:FAN the "truth". I'm taking my toys and going home. Not willing to play anymore! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

I'm sure this was an unintended side-effect of your trying out to clear out previous vandalism :-) --Philcha (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did a "restore" as I was not clear if it should be strictly considered a "vandal", having been reprimanded for doing a "vandal" when it could have been a "good faith" newbie. Sorry about that. I should have checked more thoroughly. Next time I wouldn't be so quick to intervene, although I do keep an eye on that article, like many of my prior GANs. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you are named on the Mattisse case and the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You have reacted under stress and posted an inappropriate and unhelpful comment. You did not consult with me. This is against proposal 2: "Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Wikipedia without having first consulted her mentors/advisors." Some observations on the Report were that you would not be able to comply with that proposal. I felt that you would. I am willing to assist you Mattisse - but I am not willing to simply wag my finger at you after you have done silly things. Either you take this situation seriously and commit to consulting with someone when you feel stressed, or I can no longer agree to help you. Be aware that if I read a posting by you that contains a negative comment on another Wikipedia editor I will block you for 24 hours. SilkTork *YES! 08:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Regretfully I have to agreed with SilkTork. I emailed you early on 10 Nov, finishing with "So keep calm, avoid controversy, think before saving and use your mentors" - but a few hours later you posted your inappropriate and unhelpful comment. As SilkTork said, "Mattisse to not post in anger or frustration anywhere on Wikipedia without having first consulted her mentors/advisors." I've described (several types) editors and types of situation you should avoid until you get advice first. If you can't recognise the signs of stress that lead to mistakes, or if you won't wait for advice from your mentors, you will keep getting into the same types of trouble, and the result will a very long block or a very restrictive ban or both. If you can't control your impulses, the block SilkTork suggested may be the only way to make you take time to think. --Philcha (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I concur, and this incident is a perfect illustration of one of the reasons: over an imperfect communication medium like this, misunderstandings arise very easily. Even small misperceptions can grow into long-lasting disputes. Consequently, being hasty to respond and hasty to assume anything other than good faith is not a good idea. As in life, when things seem out of place on Wikipedia, it is much better to assume "cock-up" in preference to "conspiracy" (and preferably assume neither). Geometry guy 17:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize to all of you for my unfortunate post of yesterday, and the resulting confusion. Posting while I'm crying over my dog with cancer is no excuse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ruiz v. Estelle

Updated DYK query On November 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ruiz v. Estelle, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Materialscientist (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool off

Your recent comments at the clarification page don't really help anyone, particularly yourself. Maybe you should just turn the computer off for a while, and not try to respond in potentially problematic ways there. I honestly don't think any comments you make there at this point will affect the decision there one way or another, so there really isn't any real point in making them. Just wait for the Arbs to decide whether they will reopen it or not. But saying anything new at this point, particularly without prior consultation, can do nothing but make things worse. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Seconded. I suggest you self-revert before switching the computer off, Mattisse. --JN466 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. Right now, just don't try to add any more fuel to the fire. Threatening to retire, making derogatory comments about Sandy, etc., cannot help anyone. Just revert the potentially problematic edits there and maybe ignore the page until the ArbCom makes a decision one way or another. John Carter (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
      I concur again. Geometry guy 21:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I reverted the last edit. But is reality considered "derogatory"? If you look at the total of my edits, compared to those SandyGeorgia chooses to single out, you will see that she presents a distorted picture of the situation. She wants special treatment, and she has delineated the areas that are hers (FAC, FAR, TFA), and I will avoid them. GAN is not one of them. Do you disagree? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
          • I was specifically thinking of the problematic edit summary, where you referred to "her" territory. The phrasing there was very bad. And indicating you would retire after one more DYK didn't in any way help anything. It was situations like this one that the mentors/advisors were set up for. God knows I'm a bit of a hothead myself, and one of the things I have always been told to do when I start crossing the line is just back off for a while and return later, after giving yourself time to think things over. Even though I rarely if ever do that myself, I know that a lot of my own problems could be alleviated a bit if I did so. Just take a break for a while and, if you feel you must say something there, I would ask you to at least think it over very clearly, to ensure that nothing you say could be interpreted by anyone else as being a problem. Yes, if you want, you could even e-mail me and/or maybe GG the comments in advance, so that we could make sure that they don't strike anyone as odd. But, remember this is, in effect, a court room. Anything you say can and will be held against you if someone dislikes it. Knowing that, it is always in the best interests of the accused to come off as cool as a cucumber atleast, preferably as cool as ice. Some of your recent comments definitely do not impress as being that. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

*****::I beg to disagree. SandyGeorgia has gone on and on about her eye sight, her veterinary problems, essays on her EDITCOUNTITES, and other personal comments in this arbcom, but none of the rest of us are allowed to post personal essays as she has. She has posted more kilobytes than all of us combined, and that is considered fair, as a courtroom would deal with it? I think not. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

          • You can disagree all you want about whether it is fair. However, remember that at this point the person against whom sanctions have been considered is you, not her. If you want to criticize her behavior, than file a separate RfC or let the arbitrators themselves make a decision regarding her actions. But, particularly in your position, the only person whose actions you should be concerned with on that page are your own. You were particularly asked to refrain from commenting on the comments or motivations of others, and yet above you make several comments about her which cannot be seen as being anything other than personal. Two wrongs do not make a right. If the arbitrators think that her conduct is dubious, trust me, they can make sure to let that be known to her. But your sole concern is ensuring that no one takes any offense at your own comments. The most I think it would make any sense for you, in your position, to say would be something like "I would request that she refrain from making any comments not directly relevant to the main topic of discussion". But remember, as the person who is, effectively, facing sanctions, her actions aren't your concern -- your own actions are pretty much all you should be concerned with. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) And the comments keep on coming [33]. There have now been two separate threads on this talk page today from mentors proactively asking that this behavior stop immediately. Mattisse, you are failing to listen to your mentors, failing to follow your plan, and only digging your hole deeper at the Arbitration request. These threads today are providing proof that the mentorship is not working, primarily because you are not willing to follow the very helpful advice you have been given. Mentors, this is why several of us suggested that the mentorship plan must have consequences or it would be completely ineffective. Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC) :What about the truth of that [34] Does the truth not matter to you. I have completed 236 GAN with no problems. The only problems came with two GARs (not the same as GAN) with two of the "FAC editors". Please learn the difference between GAN and GAR. Why not get someone to pass Münchausen by Internet as a GA. My verdict is not the end all and be all. The same for the GAR of Attachment Therapy, These GARs are the total "evidence" against me (repeated over and over) and were not GANs that I reviewed. So what do you mean? I completed 236 GAN reviews with no problems.[35] I have done none in the last several months because of purported complaints over this, when in essence there have been none. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I would welcome a ban on FAC, FAR and TFA as a solution to this problem. I will also rule out copy editing any articles that the editor plans to take to FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If you want to present such information, it is in your own best interests to avoid anything remotely resembling inflammatory language, because such laugnage cannot be seen by anyone else as being remotely dealing with anything but emotion. To date, you have apparently failed in doing that. Factual data is best presented in a clear, unemotional, nonperjorative way. You have not expressed yourself in that manner. Again, remember, ít was specifically for situations like this one that the mentorship/advisrorship was created. You are really not making anyone think that it is successful if you edit in a clearly emotional matter without having prior discussion. So, it is really in your own best interests to not respond directly to any statements which might be seen as being negative comments against you, either on that page or this one. Again, right now, the best thing to do is stop trying to defend yourself or respond to any comments, but to just take some time off, and, probably, by logging off for several hours. If you want to use that time to either compose comments you wish to make or something else, that would be the best atmosphere in which to create them. And, if you want to discuss things with others, I think it would probably be best to do so on their talk pages, where there is less chance of such comments as the one you seem to object to above. But, again, responding quickly to perceive insults doesn't help here. Just take some time off, possibly by logging off and composing something in Word or whatever, and maybe compose something that you wish to say. Then leave a message for me or GG or whomever to have it reviewed. But this is the time to take advantage of the mentorship, not to be seen to be acting without using it. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made a block for 12 hours. I have asked SilkTork to review this block. It is intended to avoid escalation of conflict and hence harm being done to the encyclopedia. I was saddened a lot to have to use this tool, but I will not disagree if any administrator feels I used it unwisely. Geometry guy 22:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

::::Oh, its ok. The whole thing is ridiculous anyway. No one seems to get the difference between GAN, where I have had no trouble, and GAR. I am rather used to the unfairness of this place, and the fact that some are privileged and can go on and on in arbcom about their personal problems. Nothing surprises me here. I welcome the block. Again, I would like to plead as a solution that I be banned from FAC, FAR, TFA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that is to be taken as a request for input from others, or just as a statement. If the latter, then just wait the 12 hours and post the comment on the clarifications page. If the former, and you are asking others to indicate options, I would say that perhaps a simple statement to the effect that you will voluntarily, on your own, cease making any comments there might be enough, if you think you can do that. If you think others might question whether you can or not, then maybe indicating that you would be quite willing to accept such a ban might be enough. But I do think that the phrasing you used, requesting to be banned, might impress some people the wrong way. John Carter (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

::::::I have already posted it on the clarification page. It was one of the comments objected to. I tried to explain but no one gets it. I give up. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as being banned from FAC, FAR, TFA, I would welcome it. I am already effectively banned. I would like it to be official. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I am very tired of posters such as Fainites bring up the same old incidents from the past that have no relevance to my post arbitration world. I realize that is all she has to offer, but it is old news. Is there not a time when the past can be dropped? I have had nothing to do with Fainites since the old incident she brings up over and over. Her last attempt at FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Attachment theory/archive1 failed, having nothing to do with me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)/s>

I was called away by real life after being in email discussion with Mattisse in which she was consulting with me about posting on the Clarification page. I have logged back on to note that the advice had not been taken, and that matters escalated in a very short space of time. I fully support the block, and would have done it myself if G Guy hadn't already done it.

Mattisse. Do not inflame situations. Step back from heated discussions. And immediately stop making comments about other editors. I suggest you strike the above comments about Fainites, and apologise. SilkTork *YES! 23:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can explain to me how many times an editor can repetitiously bring up the same two incidents, all which happened before the arbitration, then I will strike the comments. Meanwhile, I don't see how repetitiously bringing up these two incidents furthers the discussion. Is not once enough? Is there really no limitation on this sort of thing? If there is not, and and editor is allowed to perseverate, then I will strike the comment as you request. I am trying to understand the rules here, which do not seem to be oriented to a seeking of the truth. This is on my talk page after all. Is there no place that I can express myself?

::After all, Fainites has nothing that is new to contribute to the post-arbitration "Clarification". She is bringing up old business. You are saying that this is OK, as well as bring up incidents from 2006 by others. Is this really OK? The misunderstandings of the past are never dropped. Never do we move on. New behavior is discounted because of old mistakes? Regards, 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Mattisse, I have limited access to the internet at the moment, and several times I have logged on today and mainly dealt with you. This evening my time has been entirely spent on you. Please don't try my patience by asking me to expend more time on explaining the obvious. When I saw the above I considered automatically extending your block by another 24 hours in line with what I posted this morning. Instead I felt that I would give you the chance to do the appropriate thing, to show that you can do the appropriate thing.
Immediately strike the above and apologise because you have made a negative comment on another Wikipedia editor. SilkTork *YES! 00:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

::::You mean, even if my comments are true, because it is "negative" it cannot be posted? I do not understand this. How can I defend myself if I cannot bring up this point. What is the positive contribution of repeatedly bringing up two old incidents that or over and done with? Is this really allowed? The way it seems to me, others are allowed to post distorted examples of my "bad behavor" but I am not allowed to defend myself. Since SandyGeorgia is my prime accusor, and since it is hopeless to portray how trivial these "attacks" by me are in the larger scheme of things, it seems reasonable for me to be banned from the areas that SandyGeorgia patrols and is sensitive to. GAN is not one of those areas, so I propose that I not be banned from GAN, since there is no evidence of problems there. If this comment is grounds to ban me, then please let me know. I am seeking to find out how I can defend myself without breaking rules regarding entrenched editor's rights. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

  • "Per ArbCom, I am prohibited from engaging in unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making. I must avoid making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other editors."
  • "I will listen to the advise and feedback of neutral mentors/advisers, whether solicited or not, and follow that advice even if I do not want to do so."
  • "If I do not seem amenable to reason, after a warning, block me for short time frames as an extreme measure, e.g. 3 to 12 hours, or until my perspective is restored."

You have ten minutes to comply or I will extend your block by 24 hours. SilkTork *YES! 00:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not onlike for those ten minutes and don't know what they refer to.
Tem minutes fro what, since I am not constantly on line? Regardsl, Mattise
I have extended the block. SilkTork *YES! 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

::You have extended to block to what? I don't understand this whole proceidure. Whhat is the block extended to? Regards, Mattisse

Click on your User contributions, and you should see the block notice. Essentially you are blocked until 7.50 Greenwich Mean Time on November 13. Will you please now strike the negative comments about Fainites, and make no more negative comments about any Wikipedia editor anywhere on Wikipedia - regardless of what you feel is the provocation. SilkTork *YES! 01:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I revised the comments about Fainites to indicate that she has contributed no new evidence. Yesterday I reverted another comment upon request. [36] —Mattisse (Talk) 17:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I found Fainites comments hard to understand, but responding precipitously to them served no purpose. I was myself tempted to respond that the MBI GAR was initated by Moni3 nearly three hours prior to Mattisse's first involvement when the GAN was already closed, but quite frankly, how would it help to move forwards to rehash this? Plus my perceptions could be wrong! I do not recommend lifting this block unless Mattisse understands the need for restraint and consulting with advisors before posting under stress. Geometry guy 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I too find the comments of Fainites hard to understand. But then again, most of the "clarification" is rehash, diffs, and essay form information that misprepresents. No one dispassionately evaluating the evidence. Fainites really is not been involved in my editing at all, except the two incidents (now past and hashed out in the prior arbitration). I think that if arbs looked at the incidents "against" me at the "clarification", they will find very few after the arbcom closed, and fewer after August 31, and those were minor except for the sockpuppeting incident. But facts are an irrelevant here. And I see little indication that arbs will actually evaluate the evidence presented. I hope that if they reopen the case, they will put time limits on the endless rehashing of the old, some even going back to 2006. Also, I hope they disallow ong essays on an editor's personal circumstances and viewpoints. We could all write essays on our list of woes. I bet mind could easily beat Sandy's! (joke). Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I was trying to clarify an issue raised by Mattisse and SandyGeorgia first. My apologies if I did the opposite but I was not aware Moni3 had formally GAR'd MBI. Anyway - the purpose of my post was to address the claim by Mattisse that only FAC was a problem, not GAN. As you can see, I pointed out that although Mattisse had got involved in other's GAN and had GAR'd, she has not, to my knowledge, done an initial GAN of a plague list editor that has caused any comment.Fainites barleyscribs 13:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I am not "in contact" with any of my mentors off wiki. Perhaps the advising is a failure as I am not receiving anything off wiki to help me during this blocked interlude. The email I sent is unanswered.I will appreciate some support from my adisors. If they want to dumpt me, I give them my full permission.

Meanwhile, I will continue to try to defend myself. see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development&diff=301765674&oldid=301765659 regarding allegation that I wanted Krill's resignation. Just more misinformation. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For information, I replied by email this morning and about an hour ago. Geometry guy 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, if I am allowed to make a suggestion, I would suggest you remove (remove, not strike out) everything from this talk page section that could, in the eyes of the most hostile observer, be seen as an indication that you're obsessed with what certain other editors do or say. I would recommend you go as far as deleting all names you have mentioned here. If statements have been wrong, comment on the accuracy of the statement, with diff if necessary, without saying who made the statement. Just a suggestion; you're of course free to take it or leave it. Best, --JN466 01:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, my suggestion is always the same. Stop responding to everything! It only inflames the situation and leaves you feeling aggrieved. Take a couple of days off and then come back to wikipedia, ignore the whole arbcom clarification page, and focus on the encyclopedia itself. There are many areas that need work, many editors who would appreciate help, and you'll enjoy wikipedia a lot more. Badges of merit or 'clearing ones self' on wikipedia are totally meaningless in the real world and, in the final analysis, that is the only world that matters. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I am again asking Mattisse to strike her comments and apologise to Fainites. That would be an indication that Mattisse can be trusted to be unblocked. SilkTork *YES! 18:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Block extended as per User:Mattisse/Plan: "If I do not seem amenable to reason, after a warning, block me for short time frames as an extreme measure, e.g. 3 to 12 hours, or until my perspective is restored." I would like to see some reassurance that Mattisse will not carry on making negative comments. A concrete example of Mattisse understanding and accepting that she cannot carry on making low-level negative comments against others, would be the striking of the comments on Fainites. SilkTork *YES! 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

<Edit conflict> :I am entirely unclear what comments you want me to strike. I have hunted through the entirely confusing "Clarrificatio"n page. Fainities has confessed that she did not know that Moni3 initiated the GAR on her own article, MBI, on Geonetry guy's talk page, but not, so far as I know, on the "Clarrification page". In any event I am blocked. So giving me 10 minute warnings to reverse some situation are not useful when I am offline and off Wikipedia almost all of the . Hopefully I will check this page later today. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

SilkTork, I struck some comments on Fainites. Please point me to others that shoudl be struck, as I cannot find them. I have tried to do what you have asked. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have unblocked you. I would advise you not to make a comment on any other editor for the time being. That is no comment at all, including neutral and positive. SilkTork *YES! 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I would add that Fainites has kindly admitted a misunderstanding about the MBI GAR. There are still a couple of unstruck remarks on this page that may suggest deliberate misrepresentations by other editors, as opposed to honest mistakes and misunderstandings. Assuming good faith is a very basic principle of good editing. Now that Mattisse has been unblocked, she might also like to revisit the ArbRequest to see if there are any comments she would like to strike there for similar reasons. Geometry guy 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, Fainites has not been clear on the Clarifications page on this issue, where it matters. Posts on you personal talk page are likely to be seen by few. Though you mention good faith, I see little of it directed toward me on the Clarifications page, but rather every comment I made is portrayed in the worst possible light. Perhaps you could expand you suggestion to all concerned that they AGT when interrepret my comments and actions. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I have in fact posted the correction on the Clarifications page - but anyway - it makes no difference to the basic point. If you read what I posted carefully you will see that in fact I was making the point that GAN reviews are not a problem area for you though other aspects at GA have been.Fainites barleyscribs 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
However, every GAR I have entered on opinion in has been a community GAR, so therefore my voice was not the only one registered. Rather many voices were heard. If an article failed, it was not because of my opinion alone. I understand that reviewer who are professionals in the subject being reviewed are not welcome. So be it. But none of the points I brought up were invaded. If I had been wrong, the GAR would have resulted in a GAN. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
"I understand that reviewers who are professionals in the subject being reviewed are not welcome." Please don't sulk. This was a huffy comment of the type of which you have made dozens here; they don't win you any friends. --JN466 23:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_25&oldid=1148414707"