User talk:Mattisse/Archive 4

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

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_3) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_5)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

{{unblock|I did not realize that revert meant other than actually reverting, even though I read the rules to determine this today. The rules are not clear. Since I have several outstanding complaints regarding the tag issue on the Administers noticeboard/Incidents right now, and considering User:Ekajati, who requested the block, has been gunning for me for months, I feel blocking me over a misunderstanding I was trying to clear up on the Administers' noticboard/Incidents and trying my best to get help for is unfair. See:How to handle this - advice needed. I was told that removing tags without reason was vandalism. For recent harassment from User:Ekajati see: Puppetmaster Mattisse repeatedly removing puppetmaster tag and Question about importance. I had been told the tags in question now were fair:Uncited template and So would you say . . . and for once wanted to stick to my guns. I tried every way I knew how to get help, but without cohorts to do your work for you it's impossible to survive here. All my good edits count for nothing. This is very bitter. User:Ekajati will keep after me, and there is nothing I can do about it. You can read User:Ekajati's comments on the links above and his motivation is clear. He will not stop until I am proved a sockpuppet, even though I am not. (He just sent me a message below, as I am writing this now.) This is a mean place. I feel hopeless about Wikipedia. Here is the last check user outcome Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mattisse (3rd). Thus User:Ekajati has refused recent administrators' mandates that he use check user before making accusations because he knows it will show nothing. User:Ekajati has been told not to accuse me of being a sock puppet without proof many times, but that does not stop him. He is doing it again on the Incident page right now as I write this and no one is doing anything. He and his group want to drive me off because there is no help or protection for me, unless I disappear from every area on Wikipedia User:Ekajati & friends own (and those areas increase daily). I didn't know until this incident that the blues Is one of them. Please, if nothing else, tell me where I can go for help unless there is no help on Wikipedia. Mattisse (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kallpetta tag for importance questioned by BostonMa on User_talk:Hanuman_Das talk page. User_talk:Hanuman_Das did not reply. User:Ekajati tagged Indian rock cut architecture for importance.
Removed byHanuman Das from his talk page
maybe you can help plea for help and discusson of Rosencomet issue on User talk:JzG by Timmy12 & Ekajati. It is a long passage with many comments by others.
User:TenOfAllTrades was the only admin I could find who responded to my request to remove the sock puppet tags placed under my name on article talk pages.

Regarding reversions[1] made on October 24 2006 to Willie Dixon

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail. Tags are text and count, of course William M. Connolley 20:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re your mail. You are unblocked now. Why did you bother send it? William M. Connolley 08:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving target

What you fail to comprehend, Mattisse, is that Wikipedia rules are a moving target. Have you read the first version of WP:CITE? Here it is: [2]. In the beginning, there was no requirement beyond listing the sources at the end of the article. There weren't even any mechanisms for making footnotes at that time.

Even at the end of 2005, one of the listed citation methods was Complete citations in a "References" section. That is, a list of references without inline notes. So please stop acting like a know-it-all. You didn't even know that! That method may have lasted through most of 2006 for all I know. I'm not going to start searching through the old versions to figure out when it was changed.

You are behaving as if the editors of these "old articles" intentionally ignored the rules. This is not true. It is the rules which have changed. You will also note that WP:CITE is a guideline and not a policy. You could take the time to start adding citations yourself. Instead, you choose to insult the creators of an article by faulting them for not following a rule that didn't exist when they created the article and isn't any more than a guideline now. You add insult to injury by going through and tagging a whole group of articles on the same subject, so that the editors who work on those subject see a dozen or more tags show up on their watchlist at once. When it would only take a little more time to create some citations yourself. You clearly know how, you are doing it on (most of) the article you create from scratch.

Why the heck are you wasting your time trying to twist other people's arms rather the just continuing on working on the articles you've been working on is simply a mystery to me. Seems you enjoy telling other people what to do. Well, stop. It's not appreciated by anyone. I'd say what I think about you, but it would violate WP:CIVIL. Please go do something more productive, and quit with the socks already. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati, you need to take a step back and stop taking Mattisse's tagging as an attack on the article. It is meant as a way of bringing the problem (lack of citations) to the attention of the article's contributors. According to WP:V the burden of proof is on the article's contributors to provide sources. Mattisse didn't write the article; how can you expect her to know where the information in it came from? TomTheHand 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is indeed M's motivation, then she should proceed differently, and put a note on the talk page and discuss it there. People tend to view the tags as more of an attack when placed on the article itself William M. Connolley 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel placing tags on the article itself draws extra attention to the fact that the article doesn't cite properly. Yes, it's ugly, and it's saying something negative about the article. The proper reaction to that is to fix the article so that there's no reason to tag it. TomTheHand 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William's suggestion is the very essense of the difference between drive-by-tagging and constructive critism. Is a comment in an article's discussion page really too much to ask for? You note above that you consider the tagging to be somewhat "negative" in nature, so that being the case one would generally want to apply such tags with some decorum in order to avoid precisely the sort of problems we're discussing on this page. Consider this for a second: if a particular behavior leads to repeated problems, perhaps that behavior should be discouraged even if it is technically correct?

And in this particular case it needs to be pointed out that no inline-ref policy exists. Ekajati's in the clear here, I've been following the links above and looking over the histories and there are repeated statements to this effect. If there's anything more annoying than having regs quoted at you, it's having incorrect regs quoted at you, which is precisely what's happening in this case.

Maury 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't buy this "there's no inline citation policy" business. Yes, that's true. However, a lengthy article, such as a biography, cannot satisfy WP:V without inline refs.

John Lee Hooker was first written on June 22, 2001. It had a "Further reading" section added on May 22, 2006, with one source. Since that single source was added, all this stuff was done to the article with no more sources added. Mattisse tagged it, and people edit warred to remove the tag. The other pages in dispute are similar situations.

Is that because everything in that article was from that one source in the further reading section? Everything written over the first five years came from there, but nobody remembered to add the reference 'til May 2006, and all the stuff over the next five months came from there too, so nobody needed to add more sources?

Or is it because one source is "enough," and even though a bunch of information didn't come from that source we've done enough so nobody can complain?

I don't think so. Yes, there are some cases where WP:V can be satisfied without inline references. This is not one of those cases. TomTheHand 00:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps I should have kept my post to the real argument alone. The issue here isn't about right and wrong, it's about civility. If this behaviour leads to edit wars and blocks (and it's not just here, it's all over the wiki), is it worth it? I personally think edit wars are worse for the wiki than poor style. Maury 12:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]