( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_17) - ( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_19)
Mattisse:
I'm a novice editor (have been working on fixing typos mostly), and I have decided to expand the stub article you created during my holiday next week. I'd appreciate it if you could keep the page on your watchlist, and advise me if I put a foot in the wrong place while I'm expanding the article and placing citations and references. Thanks! -- Stani Stani 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, and for your help and support. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
When I was more active on Wikipedia, I don't know how many requests I submitted to AIV. It helped me learn more about the blocking system and how the sysops will work when blocking. Realize that a user must receive three warnings in one day for general vandalism. Only rarely when large amounts of text are deleted at once and it appears the user is on a rampage will a sysop block without ample warnings given. Hope this helps for future reference :) Dusti SPEAK!! 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, I'm sorry to hear DYK is getting complicated. To be honest, now is an unlucky time to have gotten started again, because for several days that guy has been going around pissing everyone off and just in general making it not an enjoyable place to be; things seem to be winding down, though.
As for nominating articles to DYK, you don't need to use the template if you don't want to; right now it's purely optional, and there are a good number of nominators who have chosen not to use it. If you don't want to use the template, it's pretty simple to just add a new section and then add your nom like normal, something like this:
====[[Example]]==== * ... that this is an '''[[example]]'''? New article, self nom. ~~~~
As for using the template, you basically just copy-and-paste it in to the top of whichever subsection you want (whichever date subsection, that is) and fill in what blanks you can. I made this a while back, which was intended to be a copy-and-paste example that would show up when you go to the edit window...it hasn't been adopted, but maybe you'll find it helpful (or maybe not):
Then, as for reviewing noms... as far as I know, you don't need to know anything about the template to review the noms. When you click the section edit link for whatever section that nom is in (assuming you have section editing enabled in your preferences), the template will be at the top of the edit window, and the discussion below; the discussion just goes on like a regular discussion at a talk page. Since all the discussion is going on down lower, there's not really any need to edit the stuff in the template, so you probably don't have to worry about messing things up. And all the other stuff about the new bot and everything you can totally ignore; that all goes on after a hook gets chosen and moved into the queue, and if you're not interested in that you can just focus on reviewing noms, checking sources, rewriting hooks, etc. (which is pretty much what I have been focusing on lately), and for that stuff you don't need any technical know-how.
Anyway, that's all I can think of right now...we're still working on trying to make the template more user-friendly, so hopefully things will improve soon. If you ever have any questions about how stuff works, don't hesitate to ask! And I can give you a quick tutorial in my sandbox about how to use the template and stuff, if you'd like (although it's only optional, and if you feel more comfortable just doing stuff by hand, old-school, that's perfectly acceptable too). — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for doing the GA review for Paracetamol toxicity. The changes you made were also really helpful, I appreciate it, Thanks again. Mr Bungle | talk 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
An olive branch | ||
Just so you know there are no hard feelings about our disagreements, I offer you this olive branch of peace. If I came across to harshly at any point during any of my (long-winded) disussions, please believe that it is because of a sincere interest in improving articles and keeping them solid. I know that your goals were the same. All the best. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for helping! Feel free to edit as much as you want! I'm not the best writer in the world. I'll try to expand and fix the areas you asked about. I have one quick question, what did you mean by the "technical aspects of the film"? Also, the only thing about the genre choice isn't so much an effect on the film as that it's why they decided to write the film, so it's just part of the screenwriting history of it. Could you re-phrase these problems? :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I thought I would tell you that Lockdown's FAC has been restarted. I'm informing everyone who said anything in it before the restart.-- Will C 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Requested move. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I know it is in part to your copy editing and support. Thanks for the help. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC))
Yes, I plan to stick around. I've been editing for quite a while without registering an account. -- Chimro ( talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to include the link to my response to you. Risker ( talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of
Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best,
Risker (
talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!-- Will C 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Viriditas (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I feel slightly nervous about asking this, but figured it was worth a shot. Currently an article I've nominated, Revolt of the Comuneros, is at FAC with a few comments but not many. User:Karanacs issued a weak oppose based on prose concerns, but isn't up for going through the whole article himself; I asked him about the issue on his talk page, and he specifically recommended you as a good copyeditor. Would you be willing to take a shot at the article and see if there are any further problems that could be fixed?
Just to be clear, don't feel obliged at all; Wikipedia is a volunteer project, I can ask others, etc. That said, I'd certainly appreciate anything you can offer. SnowFire ( talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You just made changes here:
First question: What does the first sentence mean? I read it: Although the relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, [the relationship between sleep and depression] appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. Does that make sense? To me, this particularly strong relationship seems undefined and meaningless.
2nd question: The ref appears to be from 2005, not 2002 as in edit summary.
3rd question, while I'm at it: I don't see what the [who?] is questioning. - Hordaland ( talk) 04:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the original sentence in the article that I changed, that was referenced by the textbook:
The REM sleep stage, the one in which dreaming occurs, tends to be quick to arrive, and intense, in depressed people. Although the precise relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, it appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. In such cases, patients may be relatively unaffected by therapeutic intervention.
This original sentence has been in the article for months, but has always bothered me because it is vague and because it is referenced by an average-level psychiatric textbook. ( WP:MEDRS says textbooks are not adequate references.) Therefore I tried to shorten the sentence and remove some of its vagueness. Coming after the specific researched-based information in the article, as that sentence does, referenced by recent research findings published in review articles, on the relationship of specific brain systems to depression, and to the effectiveness of antidepressant medications that impact the same brain systems, as also to research on the manipulation sleep cycles as well on the effectiveness of light therapy to treat certain types of depression, which also involve the same brain systems, this vague sentence seems particularly irrelevant and clumsy.
I apologize if I changed the sentence in a way you do not like. You, of course, may restore the original sentence quoted above.
As far as the year of publication, I am sorry. I must have mistyped. The who? is meant to request a more specific reference that could hopefully clarify the meaning of the sentence as well as provide a higher quality reference for it. Frankly, I think the sentence is misleading and possibly untrue for the purposes of this article. I would like to see some evidence for such a vague sentence.
Please change as you see fit. I have worked hard over the months to improve the quality of this article and the references, but I am getting tired and losing interest—especially as it takes so long to load! Cheers, — Mattisse ( Talk) 05:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. I was talking about the 15 opposes I got based on my using the term "for shit" on my talk page. What did that have to do with you? Maybe my brain is still fogged, but I'm not clear why you are offended. You have been a great help and I have no wish whatsoever to offend you. Please respond either here or on my talk page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is taking shape well. One problem is that it is hard to make avoid making it another article about Speer.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article I started.-- MONGO 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse... edits like this one just are not good. Not what we expect from seasoned contributors. Way too blatantly assuming bad faith and needling a fellow contributor. I've not followed your contributions closely but I'm not liking what I've seen... as I commented at Che, your approach may not be suitable. At all. I think you need to revisit it. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have only this to say, which is that I am in complete agreement with Lar, and I really do believe that you. Mattisse, need to reasess your attitude towards this project. I will fully admit that I myself am not perfect, with luck and a fair wind will never be perfect, and I am no role model. But it's a mistake to believe that long-standing and (I firmly believe) good faith editors like SandyG aren't worn down by the kinds of cheap pot shots that have apparently become your trade mark. I have had disagreements with many editors in the past, including SandyG and probably even Lar, but I hope that I have never carried them on into grudge matches, and I hope that I never will. -- Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, just to leave a note (because I needed to see the current hubbub) - I don't think Lar is part of Sandy's sekret force. He doesn't know the handshake. Or, I could just be on the outs. I do have a mouth that chases people away. Perhaps that is it and thats how I never met Lar at one of the meetings. :) I know I don't have any credibility with you, so you can take this as a silent confirmation of Lar really being a member. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 05:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Note - once they fix the DYK bot and plow through with accepting any PD or translated material, they will run bots to put that on wiki, have a bot auto DYK nom it, then have another bot to run it through. Who needs editors anymore when we just hae robots. :) DYK mentalities have become strange as of late. Its as if no one cares about how it was. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Did You Know I was trying to fix up the numbering bollocks occasioned by my # omission when I noticed you'd replied and sorted it at WP:Requests for adminship/Suntag ?! Ta :) All the best Plutonium27 ( talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, have you considered also compiling stats on how many of those articles Suntag has actually created or expanded himself? Glancing through, a lot of them appear to be just things he's nominated that others have written. either way ( talk) 04:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Matisse: I've noticed you around in some of the "back-room" areas of the wikis, particularly DYK and RfA. I've done the same thing before: for awhile I spent much time tracking down copyright violations at DYK/GA. And you know what? It made me miserable; I became suspicious and generally lost enthusiasm for the project. I needed to get back to doing what I was here to do in the first place! And, that's why I am approaching you.
I recall that about 5 months ago, you performed an excellent GA review of Marquis de Lafayette (seriously, I'd meant to thank you for it; but, too much time went by). Well, I and others are still working on that article. We have some NPOV problems dealing with the French Revolution (much harder to write than I had thought!), and we have added lots of text that probably needs polished. Regardless, I thought I would extend an invitation to you; we've got a lot of extra work, from your excellent GA review I think you could help; and it'll give you an excuse to leave the "back-room" for a bit. What do you think? Lazulilasher ( talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hope 2009 is a great year for you!-- MONGO 15:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning your edit here, please refrain from altering the comments of other editors. When I said that I helped Sano reach GA, I really meant it. Now assume good faith from here one. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, nice to see you again. You just altered the head section of Mongolian language, as I supposed someone would do sooner or later. I've taken up your first edit, tried to make immediate use of the second and deleted the rest, but tried to provide a clarifying comment in a footnote. If you have still problems in understanding these lines, maybe you can set me on the problematic points so that I may try to fix it. Regards, G Purevdorj ( talk) 00:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for the copyedit and the support. It was a nice surprise to get on and see it pass. Well that is 1 done and 11 to go.-- Will C 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You have my permission to copy-edit as much as you want. Wildroot ( talk) 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
Awarded for championing the ideals of encyclopedic writing and bringing about countless article improvements as part of her GA review work. Jayen 466 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you so very much! Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Matisse,
Did I ever thank you for the barnstar? If not, then everything my wife says about me being oblivious and ungrateful is patently true. ;-)
I... have been aware of your unhappiness for quite some time, but have never commented, because I was unsure how (or whether) I could help. I... hope you'll read my comments here. They sum up my position quite nicely. I also hope you can learn to WP:DGAF about any slights, real or perceived, buy other Wikipedians. I say "real or perceived" because BOTH happen all the time—somepeople are insulting, and some people appear insulting when they don't mean to be. You know what I mean.
Later! Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mattisse, you are right in that I would recuse from an arb case involving you as you noted here. However, that is not the next step. Generally, one asks for this as a venue for community discussion, given you either cannot or will not take on board what has been explained to you before. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The event is at the crossroads of several conflicting points of view. First, any article related to Prem Rawat is an emotional issue because some editors here are followers/students of his who have a very high opinion of him, while other editors are former followers/students who have a very low opinion of him. Those two groups will never reconcile or agree. The majority of the editors on both sides are single purpose accounts who only edit on this topic. It's all they care about. (FYI, I'm not a former or current follower, and I don't know any personally.) Another aspect of this topic with emotional resonance, which just came up on the talk page, is that in the past followers considered Rawat to be God - at the very least a successor to, or reincarnation of, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, et al and even the oominsicent, omnipotent god of all things. Followers do not say that anymore and do not like the old claims to be remembered. (In the early 1980s, Rawat ordered the destruction of all previous publications and recordings from the movement as part of the change in approach.) The event, and the press conference in particular, marks one of the few documented occasions when Rawat was questioned about those claims. Followers were also quoted or interviewed about the claims much more extensively than at any other time or place. Third, the event was pivotal in the history of the movement. It went from being what was called the fastest growing new religious movement in the West to a marginal sect. While there were other factors, the failure of the festival and the poor press that resulted were key elements in that dramatic change. What does all of this mean for Millennium '73? The article itself has been remarkably stable since it was posted in August. Text has been moved around, added or deleted, but on the whole the article hasn't changed very significantly. There have been no edit wars or major policy-related disputes. Editors who are followers/students would like some details removed but those are well-sourced and presented neutrally (IMO) so their inclusion or exclusion is just a matter of editorial judgment and not a policy issue. In related articles, some editors have argued at length over how to summarize quotes, which is why I've been reluctant to do so. However the good news is that there don't seem to have been any disagreements over the summarizations I've done since the GAN began. I think that is a good omen for the future stability of the article, even though it's part of a emotionally charged topic. Will Beback talk 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
A barnstar for Mattisse in recognition of her work in helping bring ' Major depressive disorder to FA status. SilkTork * YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
I've just spent some time studying Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart and I have left a comment on the RFC.
I feel that you have been misunderstood and poorly treated. SilkTork * YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed that the RfC be closed, forthwith and thought as a courtesy that I should inform you of this.
FWIW, I stand by my comments at the RfC that you're a terrific contributor with an unhappy ability to upset other users in good standing. I really hope this can all be a springboard for a happier way forward.
All the best for 2009, -- Dweller ( talk) 12:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I am sorry that I argued with you at the RfC. While I don't regret the sentiments behind my comments, placing them in that context was inappropriate of me, especially as you had made it clear that you felt the RfC tone was too combative already. It was certainly not my intention by participating in the RfC to make you feel attacked, and I regret if my recent posts there had that effect. Karanacs ( talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The only "accusation" I would make is that you seem very quick to personalize disputes, and then you hold the ensuing grudges nearly indefinitely. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, on some level - after all, none of us get paid to do this. You'll have more fun - and so will the rest of us - if you can just let some things go. Not every slight needs to be redressed. Not every dispute is the work of a "bad guy" and his or her minions. Not everyone needs to be dichotomized into "ally" or "mortal enemy" - some people are just colleagues. Not all critical feedback is an "attack". Not every adversary needs to be hounded to the ends of the earth. As the Buddha said, sometimes you've just got to let it go.
You obviously do a lot of good work here - that has been a recurring theme in the RfC comments. I'd like your interactions with your fellow editors to be smoother, for everyone's sake, but for that to happen I think it will be necessary to draw deeper conclusions from the RfC than those you've mentioned above. MastCell Talk 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to leave a little note. When I say I do not "like" you, I do not mean (in turn) that I dislike you. It takes a lot for me to be close with an individual, and bonds of friendship mean dearly to me. However, even basic humanity causes me to feel sympathy with and be concerned for others. There are very few that I do not like, and even they I would seek to be treated in a fitting manner. I am blunt and I air my mind. However, I hold no grudges. My email is always open if you feel that you need to talk about a topic. I always welcome conversation, no matter how unpleasant the topic may be. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
One thing you need to stop doing Mattisse, is sending insulting emails to those with whom you have chosen to fall out, in which you repeat your allegations of cabalism and favouritism, and even extend it to accuse disinterested third-parties who have only your best interests at heart as having organised cliques against you. The email you sent me only a few days ago displayed a state of mind that cannot be comfortable for you to have to live with. I will not make that email public, but you may choose to do so if you wish. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It is very odd to see your comments now about me, as I did believe in what you said on your talk page. Now it turns out that your talk page is not a safe place at all, and that the views you encouraged in me (and others), also were not safe. I was naive enough to believe in you then. Now I see you as part of the Calisber> SandyGeorgia> (and suddenly out of now where) ++Lars clique. I am very sorry to see you in this light, as I did believe in you originally. Regards, Mattisse
I think we kind of got off on the wrong foot at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. I appreciate the work you did on Sano, but I hope you understand that you weren't alone. Tintor2 and I also did the best we could've before having that copy-edit request made. Well, that's about it. Now Trunks (Dragon Ball) is another page I have my eyes on, though there isn't much I can do there. Do you think you'll have time to fix up that one too? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been stated in the past by User:Salix alba and others that this link was to be dropped and not used hound me for mistakes far in the past. I was blocked for 24 hours because of it. My debt for my mistakes has been paid and the incident has been over for 2 1/2 years. There was no legitimate reason to include it, except to allow an editor try to make a case that I have been evil, corrupt and a disservice to wikipedia since May 2006 when I started editing. It is just a link to a talk page posting, not a checkuser. If the version of the RFC that Casliber originated had been used [4], then there would have been a possibility of dealing with specific issues and something positive oould have resulted. Instead there was a "piling on" going way into the past that turned nasty and vindictive. — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I dont want to bother, but the Trunks article still needs some work before a copy-edit. The article needs some thing such as fixing and adding refs. Tintor2 ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I might be one of the last people you want to hear from right now (considering our sometimes turbulent past) but I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that despite all that, I still recognize that you provide many useful and helpful services to Wikipedia. We all can get emotional/impassioned at times (lord knows I am guilty) and I hope that the RFC (of which I had no intention of taking part) does not drive you away from the Wiki project for good. Most of us make up a beneficial link in the proverbial Wiki-chain and even though we have had our share of past edit-battles, I recognize that you bring many beneficial attributes to the overall wiki endeavor. It is my hope that this short message serves as a second olive branch (the first being my unilateral apology long ago) that should we work together in the future, I would hope it is with a fresh slate. Best regards. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response to my comment. I do hope things work out for you. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I note the merger tag you placed on the above article almost a year ago. I've completed the merge and expanded the article. He seems like quite an important subject, and I think there is more to be done. Thanks for placing the tag. Someone gets around to it eventually! Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Without having checked all the details of it, that RFC looks like some people trying to silence criticism they don't like hearing. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you did a GA review of the Rickey Henderson article in August, I was hoping you might have a look at it due to an edit war regarding the intro. Another editor and I are arguing over two potential versions, which can be found here and here; please have a look and offer your ideas. Thanks. MisfitToys ( talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure if I've said this yet but thanks for the fixes you made to Slammiversary (2008). I've been here a year today, and in that time I've gotten one FA and four GAs. Maybe before the night is over it will be five GAs. (reply on my page if you don't mind).-- Will C 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. To be honest though, I've always been wary of getting articles on the main page because they get vandalized so much. But it is still nice to see it there. Thanks again for the help getting it to FA. ( Guyinblack25 talk 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for reviewing this article. I have looked for more personal information, but there's not a lot. I have found a good source for him being married to Michi Saito, but that's about all of the personal information that appears to be available (aside from the arrest). I'm not going to go to GAR, because I think you make a good case for it not having enough depth to interest the average reader. I was interested to see if it would meet the GA criteria, but apparently it's not there yet. Thanks again. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much for the positive review, glad you enjoyed it! It's like the jewel of Gaza, shame what's going on. Anyhow, regards. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
History of evolutionary thought has been nominated at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to run on Feb 12, the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Since you were kind enough to express support for this idea during the pre-nomination debate I thought you might want to comment on the actual nomination. Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Can you please tell me how to have my deleted page restored? I wrote an article yesterday about a photographer named Seth Sabal. I followed all the rules and established "notablity", sourced all my references and it was deleted. I think this might be a bias delete, based on old posts. I dont even know how about having this fixed, I think it should be included. I noticed all the nice articles that you have written, and would love you help.
Now the editors are insinuating some things about my grammer, and I feel so angry. This is supposed to be a great resource for students like myself, Its even our class assignement to make a Wiki article. I am flabbergasted that it been so difficult with all the correct reference links and obvious notability. PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you please help me.
Thank you for your help. PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
HI Matisse, I went ahead and did my research like you suggested, I found and linked Vogue contributions of the photographer Seth Sabal. :) I knew that I would find it. I also found him in the list of Model.com as one of the top photographers for fashion in the world, with a Vogue Brazil link. I really apprciate all your help, and now I want to know how I would go about undeleting this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox
Thank you, Sarah PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
(posted on user's talk page)
User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox is redirected to Wikipedia:Transwiki log so I can't find your article. Anyway, you can appeal to Wikipedia:Deletion review where you can appeal to have the article undeleted. You have to follow the directions there, which are rather hard to understand.
Do you know who deleted your article? What admin did? I think maybe it was User talk:Wehwalt. You should contact him first.
Or you could go to the Wikipedia:Help desk and ask for help. — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's in my sandbox, now that I have rewritten it, how to I go about submitting it again? Also, would you kindly take a look at it and see if you like it? Thank you!! Sarah
PhotobloggerNYT (
talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you consider "reliable" sources? I am at a loss, I thought linking the Vogue and Surface would be enough. Please elaborate. Thank you. PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw (from following Malleus' contribs to be frank) that I came up once or twice in your FRC. Pity as the most I've seen of you before was when you did the GA review of Panic of 1907. I had palnned on asking you to help and comment on The Lucy poems, by far the most difficult article I have tackled; it was largely written by Ottava (we do fight but at the end of the day....) but we need input from a careful eye. Until I read the bits of the RfC, I had though we would get along, whatever, frankly I still think we would get likely along fine. I'm a bit prickly around the edges for sure, but ultimatly only interested in articles and compleatly and utterly uninterested in wiki-politics. Anyway the whole point of this is that when Lucy gets to GAR, and later FA, a reviewer like you would be pennys from heaven - (I'm asking for a favour here). Ceoil ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You left three banners on beyond the shadow of a doubt. Would you be willing to explain them on the articles talk page, especially the third? Thanks, Piratejosh85 ( talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Beyond the shadow of a doubt)
As far as I know, this is not a legal term in any jurisdiction of which I am aware. The article give no reliable sources. It mentions that it was used in a newspaper 200 years ago, although it does not say in what context. It also mentions that it was used in an opera and a poem. None of these qualify as supporting this term as a legal term. The article is totally unreferenced.
The article misleadingly states: "The term is often, though mistakenly, used interchangeably with beyond a reasonable doubt." This is not true in the UK or the US.
Furthermore, there is no definition in the article of what Beyond the shadow of a doubt means.
Wording such as "many feel" are considered weasel words by wikipedia.
Considering the article is unreferenced and asserts information that is untrue, using weasel wording, it may be original research. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added some generic examples to see if tactics and pitch conditions are more understandable. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I could always do with more copyeditors. Thanks again. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I have addressed all of your GA concerns, and the article is ready for another look. -- Pres N 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse. I would be interested in your comments on the possible content changes being discussed at Talk:Che Guevara, for example at this thread about crimes and this thread about executions. Redthoreau asked me to comment, and I'm asking you and Polaris999. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 20:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(I have replied to you on your talk page [12])
Redthoreau's welcoming Polaris999 to edit an article [14] that Polaris999 created and has by far the greatest number of edits to seems unnecessary in ordinary situations, as on Wikipedia everyone is welcome to edit an article. Therefore, it seems to me to be an implicit acknowledgment that Redhoreau feels he has given the impression of article ownership. And the offer is made some six months(?) after Polaris999 stopped feeling welcome to edit there. To say that he is willing to cede to the judgment of Polaris999 seems to be in recognition that he has been unwilling, for the most part, to do so before. It also clearly only pertains to Polari999, to whom Redthoreau has always been deferential in words, if not in actions. Therefore, other editors are not included. (If this post does not seem that I am assuming good faith, then please forgive my post. I apologize and I will strike it out upon request.) Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I'm saying this because you mentioned me in the mentorship section of the RfC: you're welcome to ask me for help and advice about any aspect of Wikipedia. I can understand that you might not want my advice, and anyway there are parts of Wikipedia you know more about than I do. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 03:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, do you think you can check over Sacrifice (2008)? I'm going to nominate it for FAC shortly and want to make sure everything is not overlinked. Give your answer here for now because I'm in the process of working on little fixes while I read it one more time and don't want an edit conflict.-- Will C 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - regarding this edit, SandyGeorgia didn't actually remove your comments. Instead she moved them from her outside view section to your response section. Consequently your edit actually duplicated information, which now appears in the subsections on Reply accusations of racism and India and Reply by Mattisse to SandyGeorgia re accusations of racism and India. You may want to tidy this up - I don't mind doing it if you prefer.
Also, my understanding is that the allegation of a racist comment in a diff was made by Casliber, not SandyGeorgia. Have I missed something? Thanks, and sorry for bringing this reminder of the RfC to your talk page. Geometry guy 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse. You have much to give Wikipedia - indeed, you have already given much. I haven't been paying much attention to the RFC after I left a couple of comments, but I did notice that you had me down on a list of those you would consider as mentors, and I did think about it. I thought very seriously about it as I really do think you are a net benefit to the project. But I'm not sure you'd listen to me. I really don't. I don't think you'd ignore my advice, or be confrontational, or do anything really nasty. But I think you get a bit hot headed now and again when something stirs you up, and you'd go off and do your own thing. And I don't think I could deal with that. I wondered, though, if we could talk on-Wiki about some of the problems you've been having. Problems with what may be called the "senior" Wikipedians, such as Sandy.
I think it would be helpful to explore the issues to see where your relationship with her (and any others you'd like to talk about) broke down. To see how much was your fault, how much was her fault, and how much was misunderstanding or circumstances.
But I wouldn't like to do that against a background of confrontation and ill-feeling. I feel it will be a tricky enough route anyway, and will involve a lot of reading, and some communication with Sandy herself. If I'm doing that against a background of you making comments about her, that would just sidetrack discussions, and we wouldn't get anywhere.
Would you be willing to discuss your issues regarding Sandy with me? I could set up a sub-page for us to talk. And would you in the meantime stop making ANY comments on the RFC (I think that RFC is doing more harm than good, and commenting on it is just feeding the bad will). Would you stop making ANY comments (good or bad) about Sandy on any page other than the one I set up where you can talk freely about Sandy. But, until we resolve this issue, would you be able to stop talking about her elsewhere?
Have a think about it and get back to me on my talkpage. Regards. SilkTork * YES! 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I don't know quite what you mean by "removing templates". Cite templates are more or less required under WP:MOS. The article also contain geographical coordinate templates (which you can skip over while reading, but are uselful to some) and quote templates (which are also supported in MOS as a way of making quotes appear correctly).-- Grahame ( talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_17) - ( User talk:Mattisse/Archive_19)
Mattisse:
I'm a novice editor (have been working on fixing typos mostly), and I have decided to expand the stub article you created during my holiday next week. I'd appreciate it if you could keep the page on your watchlist, and advise me if I put a foot in the wrong place while I'm expanding the article and placing citations and references. Thanks! -- Stani Stani 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, and for your help and support. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
When I was more active on Wikipedia, I don't know how many requests I submitted to AIV. It helped me learn more about the blocking system and how the sysops will work when blocking. Realize that a user must receive three warnings in one day for general vandalism. Only rarely when large amounts of text are deleted at once and it appears the user is on a rampage will a sysop block without ample warnings given. Hope this helps for future reference :) Dusti SPEAK!! 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, I'm sorry to hear DYK is getting complicated. To be honest, now is an unlucky time to have gotten started again, because for several days that guy has been going around pissing everyone off and just in general making it not an enjoyable place to be; things seem to be winding down, though.
As for nominating articles to DYK, you don't need to use the template if you don't want to; right now it's purely optional, and there are a good number of nominators who have chosen not to use it. If you don't want to use the template, it's pretty simple to just add a new section and then add your nom like normal, something like this:
====[[Example]]==== * ... that this is an '''[[example]]'''? New article, self nom. ~~~~
As for using the template, you basically just copy-and-paste it in to the top of whichever subsection you want (whichever date subsection, that is) and fill in what blanks you can. I made this a while back, which was intended to be a copy-and-paste example that would show up when you go to the edit window...it hasn't been adopted, but maybe you'll find it helpful (or maybe not):
Then, as for reviewing noms... as far as I know, you don't need to know anything about the template to review the noms. When you click the section edit link for whatever section that nom is in (assuming you have section editing enabled in your preferences), the template will be at the top of the edit window, and the discussion below; the discussion just goes on like a regular discussion at a talk page. Since all the discussion is going on down lower, there's not really any need to edit the stuff in the template, so you probably don't have to worry about messing things up. And all the other stuff about the new bot and everything you can totally ignore; that all goes on after a hook gets chosen and moved into the queue, and if you're not interested in that you can just focus on reviewing noms, checking sources, rewriting hooks, etc. (which is pretty much what I have been focusing on lately), and for that stuff you don't need any technical know-how.
Anyway, that's all I can think of right now...we're still working on trying to make the template more user-friendly, so hopefully things will improve soon. If you ever have any questions about how stuff works, don't hesitate to ask! And I can give you a quick tutorial in my sandbox about how to use the template and stuff, if you'd like (although it's only optional, and if you feel more comfortable just doing stuff by hand, old-school, that's perfectly acceptable too). — Politizer talk/ contribs 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, thanks for doing the GA review for Paracetamol toxicity. The changes you made were also really helpful, I appreciate it, Thanks again. Mr Bungle | talk 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
An olive branch | ||
Just so you know there are no hard feelings about our disagreements, I offer you this olive branch of peace. If I came across to harshly at any point during any of my (long-winded) disussions, please believe that it is because of a sincere interest in improving articles and keeping them solid. I know that your goals were the same. All the best. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for helping! Feel free to edit as much as you want! I'm not the best writer in the world. I'll try to expand and fix the areas you asked about. I have one quick question, what did you mean by the "technical aspects of the film"? Also, the only thing about the genre choice isn't so much an effect on the film as that it's why they decided to write the film, so it's just part of the screenwriting history of it. Could you re-phrase these problems? :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I thought I would tell you that Lockdown's FAC has been restarted. I'm informing everyone who said anything in it before the restart.-- Will C 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see: Requested move. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words. I know it is in part to your copy editing and support. Thanks for the help. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC))
Yes, I plan to stick around. I've been editing for quite a while without registering an account. -- Chimro ( talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to include the link to my response to you. Risker ( talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of
Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best,
Risker (
talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!-- Will C 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Viriditas (
talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{
subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I feel slightly nervous about asking this, but figured it was worth a shot. Currently an article I've nominated, Revolt of the Comuneros, is at FAC with a few comments but not many. User:Karanacs issued a weak oppose based on prose concerns, but isn't up for going through the whole article himself; I asked him about the issue on his talk page, and he specifically recommended you as a good copyeditor. Would you be willing to take a shot at the article and see if there are any further problems that could be fixed?
Just to be clear, don't feel obliged at all; Wikipedia is a volunteer project, I can ask others, etc. That said, I'd certainly appreciate anything you can offer. SnowFire ( talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You just made changes here:
First question: What does the first sentence mean? I read it: Although the relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, [the relationship between sleep and depression] appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. Does that make sense? To me, this particularly strong relationship seems undefined and meaningless.
2nd question: The ref appears to be from 2005, not 2002 as in edit summary.
3rd question, while I'm at it: I don't see what the [who?] is questioning. - Hordaland ( talk) 04:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
This is the original sentence in the article that I changed, that was referenced by the textbook:
The REM sleep stage, the one in which dreaming occurs, tends to be quick to arrive, and intense, in depressed people. Although the precise relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, it appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. In such cases, patients may be relatively unaffected by therapeutic intervention.
This original sentence has been in the article for months, but has always bothered me because it is vague and because it is referenced by an average-level psychiatric textbook. ( WP:MEDRS says textbooks are not adequate references.) Therefore I tried to shorten the sentence and remove some of its vagueness. Coming after the specific researched-based information in the article, as that sentence does, referenced by recent research findings published in review articles, on the relationship of specific brain systems to depression, and to the effectiveness of antidepressant medications that impact the same brain systems, as also to research on the manipulation sleep cycles as well on the effectiveness of light therapy to treat certain types of depression, which also involve the same brain systems, this vague sentence seems particularly irrelevant and clumsy.
I apologize if I changed the sentence in a way you do not like. You, of course, may restore the original sentence quoted above.
As far as the year of publication, I am sorry. I must have mistyped. The who? is meant to request a more specific reference that could hopefully clarify the meaning of the sentence as well as provide a higher quality reference for it. Frankly, I think the sentence is misleading and possibly untrue for the purposes of this article. I would like to see some evidence for such a vague sentence.
Please change as you see fit. I have worked hard over the months to improve the quality of this article and the references, but I am getting tired and losing interest—especially as it takes so long to load! Cheers, — Mattisse ( Talk) 05:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. I was talking about the 15 opposes I got based on my using the term "for shit" on my talk page. What did that have to do with you? Maybe my brain is still fogged, but I'm not clear why you are offended. You have been a great help and I have no wish whatsoever to offend you. Please respond either here or on my talk page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is taking shape well. One problem is that it is hard to make avoid making it another article about Speer.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing the article I started.-- MONGO 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse... edits like this one just are not good. Not what we expect from seasoned contributors. Way too blatantly assuming bad faith and needling a fellow contributor. I've not followed your contributions closely but I'm not liking what I've seen... as I commented at Che, your approach may not be suitable. At all. I think you need to revisit it. ++ Lar: t/ c 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I have only this to say, which is that I am in complete agreement with Lar, and I really do believe that you. Mattisse, need to reasess your attitude towards this project. I will fully admit that I myself am not perfect, with luck and a fair wind will never be perfect, and I am no role model. But it's a mistake to believe that long-standing and (I firmly believe) good faith editors like SandyG aren't worn down by the kinds of cheap pot shots that have apparently become your trade mark. I have had disagreements with many editors in the past, including SandyG and probably even Lar, but I hope that I have never carried them on into grudge matches, and I hope that I never will. -- Malleus Fatuorum 04:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, just to leave a note (because I needed to see the current hubbub) - I don't think Lar is part of Sandy's sekret force. He doesn't know the handshake. Or, I could just be on the outs. I do have a mouth that chases people away. Perhaps that is it and thats how I never met Lar at one of the meetings. :) I know I don't have any credibility with you, so you can take this as a silent confirmation of Lar really being a member. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 05:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Note - once they fix the DYK bot and plow through with accepting any PD or translated material, they will run bots to put that on wiki, have a bot auto DYK nom it, then have another bot to run it through. Who needs editors anymore when we just hae robots. :) DYK mentalities have become strange as of late. Its as if no one cares about how it was. Ottava Rima ( talk) 22:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Did You Know I was trying to fix up the numbering bollocks occasioned by my # omission when I noticed you'd replied and sorted it at WP:Requests for adminship/Suntag ?! Ta :) All the best Plutonium27 ( talk) 20:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattisse, have you considered also compiling stats on how many of those articles Suntag has actually created or expanded himself? Glancing through, a lot of them appear to be just things he's nominated that others have written. either way ( talk) 04:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Matisse: I've noticed you around in some of the "back-room" areas of the wikis, particularly DYK and RfA. I've done the same thing before: for awhile I spent much time tracking down copyright violations at DYK/GA. And you know what? It made me miserable; I became suspicious and generally lost enthusiasm for the project. I needed to get back to doing what I was here to do in the first place! And, that's why I am approaching you.
I recall that about 5 months ago, you performed an excellent GA review of Marquis de Lafayette (seriously, I'd meant to thank you for it; but, too much time went by). Well, I and others are still working on that article. We have some NPOV problems dealing with the French Revolution (much harder to write than I had thought!), and we have added lots of text that probably needs polished. Regardless, I thought I would extend an invitation to you; we've got a lot of extra work, from your excellent GA review I think you could help; and it'll give you an excuse to leave the "back-room" for a bit. What do you think? Lazulilasher ( talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hope 2009 is a great year for you!-- MONGO 15:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning your edit here, please refrain from altering the comments of other editors. When I said that I helped Sano reach GA, I really meant it. Now assume good faith from here one. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, nice to see you again. You just altered the head section of Mongolian language, as I supposed someone would do sooner or later. I've taken up your first edit, tried to make immediate use of the second and deleted the rest, but tried to provide a clarifying comment in a footnote. If you have still problems in understanding these lines, maybe you can set me on the problematic points so that I may try to fix it. Regards, G Purevdorj ( talk) 00:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks for the copyedit and the support. It was a nice surprise to get on and see it pass. Well that is 1 done and 11 to go.-- Will C 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
You have my permission to copy-edit as much as you want. Wildroot ( talk) 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar | ||
Awarded for championing the ideals of encyclopedic writing and bringing about countless article improvements as part of her GA review work. Jayen 466 15:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you so very much! Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 15:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Matisse,
Did I ever thank you for the barnstar? If not, then everything my wife says about me being oblivious and ungrateful is patently true. ;-)
I... have been aware of your unhappiness for quite some time, but have never commented, because I was unsure how (or whether) I could help. I... hope you'll read my comments here. They sum up my position quite nicely. I also hope you can learn to WP:DGAF about any slights, real or perceived, buy other Wikipedians. I say "real or perceived" because BOTH happen all the time—somepeople are insulting, and some people appear insulting when they don't mean to be. You know what I mean.
Later! Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 00:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mattisse, you are right in that I would recuse from an arb case involving you as you noted here. However, that is not the next step. Generally, one asks for this as a venue for community discussion, given you either cannot or will not take on board what has been explained to you before. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The event is at the crossroads of several conflicting points of view. First, any article related to Prem Rawat is an emotional issue because some editors here are followers/students of his who have a very high opinion of him, while other editors are former followers/students who have a very low opinion of him. Those two groups will never reconcile or agree. The majority of the editors on both sides are single purpose accounts who only edit on this topic. It's all they care about. (FYI, I'm not a former or current follower, and I don't know any personally.) Another aspect of this topic with emotional resonance, which just came up on the talk page, is that in the past followers considered Rawat to be God - at the very least a successor to, or reincarnation of, Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, et al and even the oominsicent, omnipotent god of all things. Followers do not say that anymore and do not like the old claims to be remembered. (In the early 1980s, Rawat ordered the destruction of all previous publications and recordings from the movement as part of the change in approach.) The event, and the press conference in particular, marks one of the few documented occasions when Rawat was questioned about those claims. Followers were also quoted or interviewed about the claims much more extensively than at any other time or place. Third, the event was pivotal in the history of the movement. It went from being what was called the fastest growing new religious movement in the West to a marginal sect. While there were other factors, the failure of the festival and the poor press that resulted were key elements in that dramatic change. What does all of this mean for Millennium '73? The article itself has been remarkably stable since it was posted in August. Text has been moved around, added or deleted, but on the whole the article hasn't changed very significantly. There have been no edit wars or major policy-related disputes. Editors who are followers/students would like some details removed but those are well-sourced and presented neutrally (IMO) so their inclusion or exclusion is just a matter of editorial judgment and not a policy issue. In related articles, some editors have argued at length over how to summarize quotes, which is why I've been reluctant to do so. However the good news is that there don't seem to have been any disagreements over the summarizations I've done since the GAN began. I think that is a good omen for the future stability of the article, even though it's part of a emotionally charged topic. Will Beback talk 23:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
A barnstar for Mattisse in recognition of her work in helping bring ' Major depressive disorder to FA status. SilkTork * YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
I've just spent some time studying Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder/restart and I have left a comment on the RFC.
I feel that you have been misunderstood and poorly treated. SilkTork * YES! 19:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proposed that the RfC be closed, forthwith and thought as a courtesy that I should inform you of this.
FWIW, I stand by my comments at the RfC that you're a terrific contributor with an unhappy ability to upset other users in good standing. I really hope this can all be a springboard for a happier way forward.
All the best for 2009, -- Dweller ( talk) 12:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I am sorry that I argued with you at the RfC. While I don't regret the sentiments behind my comments, placing them in that context was inappropriate of me, especially as you had made it clear that you felt the RfC tone was too combative already. It was certainly not my intention by participating in the RfC to make you feel attacked, and I regret if my recent posts there had that effect. Karanacs ( talk) 00:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The only "accusation" I would make is that you seem very quick to personalize disputes, and then you hold the ensuing grudges nearly indefinitely. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, on some level - after all, none of us get paid to do this. You'll have more fun - and so will the rest of us - if you can just let some things go. Not every slight needs to be redressed. Not every dispute is the work of a "bad guy" and his or her minions. Not everyone needs to be dichotomized into "ally" or "mortal enemy" - some people are just colleagues. Not all critical feedback is an "attack". Not every adversary needs to be hounded to the ends of the earth. As the Buddha said, sometimes you've just got to let it go.
You obviously do a lot of good work here - that has been a recurring theme in the RfC comments. I'd like your interactions with your fellow editors to be smoother, for everyone's sake, but for that to happen I think it will be necessary to draw deeper conclusions from the RfC than those you've mentioned above. MastCell Talk 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to leave a little note. When I say I do not "like" you, I do not mean (in turn) that I dislike you. It takes a lot for me to be close with an individual, and bonds of friendship mean dearly to me. However, even basic humanity causes me to feel sympathy with and be concerned for others. There are very few that I do not like, and even they I would seek to be treated in a fitting manner. I am blunt and I air my mind. However, I hold no grudges. My email is always open if you feel that you need to talk about a topic. I always welcome conversation, no matter how unpleasant the topic may be. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
One thing you need to stop doing Mattisse, is sending insulting emails to those with whom you have chosen to fall out, in which you repeat your allegations of cabalism and favouritism, and even extend it to accuse disinterested third-parties who have only your best interests at heart as having organised cliques against you. The email you sent me only a few days ago displayed a state of mind that cannot be comfortable for you to have to live with. I will not make that email public, but you may choose to do so if you wish. -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It is very odd to see your comments now about me, as I did believe in what you said on your talk page. Now it turns out that your talk page is not a safe place at all, and that the views you encouraged in me (and others), also were not safe. I was naive enough to believe in you then. Now I see you as part of the Calisber> SandyGeorgia> (and suddenly out of now where) ++Lars clique. I am very sorry to see you in this light, as I did believe in you originally. Regards, Mattisse
I think we kind of got off on the wrong foot at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. I appreciate the work you did on Sano, but I hope you understand that you weren't alone. Tintor2 and I also did the best we could've before having that copy-edit request made. Well, that's about it. Now Trunks (Dragon Ball) is another page I have my eyes on, though there isn't much I can do there. Do you think you'll have time to fix up that one too? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been stated in the past by User:Salix alba and others that this link was to be dropped and not used hound me for mistakes far in the past. I was blocked for 24 hours because of it. My debt for my mistakes has been paid and the incident has been over for 2 1/2 years. There was no legitimate reason to include it, except to allow an editor try to make a case that I have been evil, corrupt and a disservice to wikipedia since May 2006 when I started editing. It is just a link to a talk page posting, not a checkuser. If the version of the RFC that Casliber originated had been used [4], then there would have been a possibility of dealing with specific issues and something positive oould have resulted. Instead there was a "piling on" going way into the past that turned nasty and vindictive. — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I dont want to bother, but the Trunks article still needs some work before a copy-edit. The article needs some thing such as fixing and adding refs. Tintor2 ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I might be one of the last people you want to hear from right now (considering our sometimes turbulent past) but I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that despite all that, I still recognize that you provide many useful and helpful services to Wikipedia. We all can get emotional/impassioned at times (lord knows I am guilty) and I hope that the RFC (of which I had no intention of taking part) does not drive you away from the Wiki project for good. Most of us make up a beneficial link in the proverbial Wiki-chain and even though we have had our share of past edit-battles, I recognize that you bring many beneficial attributes to the overall wiki endeavor. It is my hope that this short message serves as a second olive branch (the first being my unilateral apology long ago) that should we work together in the future, I would hope it is with a fresh slate. Best regards. Redthoreau ( talk)RT 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your response to my comment. I do hope things work out for you. Best wishes, Durova Charge! 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I note the merger tag you placed on the above article almost a year ago. I've completed the merge and expanded the article. He seems like quite an important subject, and I think there is more to be done. Thanks for placing the tag. Someone gets around to it eventually! Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Without having checked all the details of it, that RFC looks like some people trying to silence criticism they don't like hearing. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Since you did a GA review of the Rickey Henderson article in August, I was hoping you might have a look at it due to an edit war regarding the intro. Another editor and I are arguing over two potential versions, which can be found here and here; please have a look and offer your ideas. Thanks. MisfitToys ( talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure if I've said this yet but thanks for the fixes you made to Slammiversary (2008). I've been here a year today, and in that time I've gotten one FA and four GAs. Maybe before the night is over it will be five GAs. (reply on my page if you don't mind).-- Will C 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. To be honest though, I've always been wary of getting articles on the main page because they get vandalized so much. But it is still nice to see it there. Thanks again for the help getting it to FA. ( Guyinblack25 talk 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for reviewing this article. I have looked for more personal information, but there's not a lot. I have found a good source for him being married to Michi Saito, but that's about all of the personal information that appears to be available (aside from the arrest). I'm not going to go to GAR, because I think you make a good case for it not having enough depth to interest the average reader. I was interested to see if it would meet the GA criteria, but apparently it's not there yet. Thanks again. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much for the positive review, glad you enjoyed it! It's like the jewel of Gaza, shame what's going on. Anyhow, regards. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
History of evolutionary thought has been nominated at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to run on Feb 12, the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Since you were kind enough to express support for this idea during the pre-nomination debate I thought you might want to comment on the actual nomination. Thanks. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, Can you please tell me how to have my deleted page restored? I wrote an article yesterday about a photographer named Seth Sabal. I followed all the rules and established "notablity", sourced all my references and it was deleted. I think this might be a bias delete, based on old posts. I dont even know how about having this fixed, I think it should be included. I noticed all the nice articles that you have written, and would love you help.
Now the editors are insinuating some things about my grammer, and I feel so angry. This is supposed to be a great resource for students like myself, Its even our class assignement to make a Wiki article. I am flabbergasted that it been so difficult with all the correct reference links and obvious notability. PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you please help me.
Thank you for your help. PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
HI Matisse, I went ahead and did my research like you suggested, I found and linked Vogue contributions of the photographer Seth Sabal. :) I knew that I would find it. I also found him in the list of Model.com as one of the top photographers for fashion in the world, with a Vogue Brazil link. I really apprciate all your help, and now I want to know how I would go about undeleting this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox
Thank you, Sarah PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
(posted on user's talk page)
User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox is redirected to Wikipedia:Transwiki log so I can't find your article. Anyway, you can appeal to Wikipedia:Deletion review where you can appeal to have the article undeleted. You have to follow the directions there, which are rather hard to understand.
Do you know who deleted your article? What admin did? I think maybe it was User talk:Wehwalt. You should contact him first.
Or you could go to the Wikipedia:Help desk and ask for help. — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's in my sandbox, now that I have rewritten it, how to I go about submitting it again? Also, would you kindly take a look at it and see if you like it? Thank you!! Sarah
PhotobloggerNYT (
talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you consider "reliable" sources? I am at a loss, I thought linking the Vogue and Surface would be enough. Please elaborate. Thank you. PhotobloggerNYT ( talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I saw (from following Malleus' contribs to be frank) that I came up once or twice in your FRC. Pity as the most I've seen of you before was when you did the GA review of Panic of 1907. I had palnned on asking you to help and comment on The Lucy poems, by far the most difficult article I have tackled; it was largely written by Ottava (we do fight but at the end of the day....) but we need input from a careful eye. Until I read the bits of the RfC, I had though we would get along, whatever, frankly I still think we would get likely along fine. I'm a bit prickly around the edges for sure, but ultimatly only interested in articles and compleatly and utterly uninterested in wiki-politics. Anyway the whole point of this is that when Lucy gets to GAR, and later FA, a reviewer like you would be pennys from heaven - (I'm asking for a favour here). Ceoil ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
You left three banners on beyond the shadow of a doubt. Would you be willing to explain them on the articles talk page, especially the third? Thanks, Piratejosh85 ( talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
(copied from Talk:Beyond the shadow of a doubt)
As far as I know, this is not a legal term in any jurisdiction of which I am aware. The article give no reliable sources. It mentions that it was used in a newspaper 200 years ago, although it does not say in what context. It also mentions that it was used in an opera and a poem. None of these qualify as supporting this term as a legal term. The article is totally unreferenced.
The article misleadingly states: "The term is often, though mistakenly, used interchangeably with beyond a reasonable doubt." This is not true in the UK or the US.
Furthermore, there is no definition in the article of what Beyond the shadow of a doubt means.
Wording such as "many feel" are considered weasel words by wikipedia.
Considering the article is unreferenced and asserts information that is untrue, using weasel wording, it may be original research. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I've added some generic examples to see if tactics and pitch conditions are more understandable. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I could always do with more copyeditors. Thanks again. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that I have addressed all of your GA concerns, and the article is ready for another look. -- Pres N 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse. I would be interested in your comments on the possible content changes being discussed at Talk:Che Guevara, for example at this thread about crimes and this thread about executions. Redthoreau asked me to comment, and I'm asking you and Polaris999. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 20:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(I have replied to you on your talk page [12])
Redthoreau's welcoming Polaris999 to edit an article [14] that Polaris999 created and has by far the greatest number of edits to seems unnecessary in ordinary situations, as on Wikipedia everyone is welcome to edit an article. Therefore, it seems to me to be an implicit acknowledgment that Redhoreau feels he has given the impression of article ownership. And the offer is made some six months(?) after Polaris999 stopped feeling welcome to edit there. To say that he is willing to cede to the judgment of Polaris999 seems to be in recognition that he has been unwilling, for the most part, to do so before. It also clearly only pertains to Polari999, to whom Redthoreau has always been deferential in words, if not in actions. Therefore, other editors are not included. (If this post does not seem that I am assuming good faith, then please forgive my post. I apologize and I will strike it out upon request.) Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, I'm saying this because you mentioned me in the mentorship section of the RfC: you're welcome to ask me for help and advice about any aspect of Wikipedia. I can understand that you might not want my advice, and anyway there are parts of Wikipedia you know more about than I do. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 03:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, do you think you can check over Sacrifice (2008)? I'm going to nominate it for FAC shortly and want to make sure everything is not overlinked. Give your answer here for now because I'm in the process of working on little fixes while I read it one more time and don't want an edit conflict.-- Will C 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi - regarding this edit, SandyGeorgia didn't actually remove your comments. Instead she moved them from her outside view section to your response section. Consequently your edit actually duplicated information, which now appears in the subsections on Reply accusations of racism and India and Reply by Mattisse to SandyGeorgia re accusations of racism and India. You may want to tidy this up - I don't mind doing it if you prefer.
Also, my understanding is that the allegation of a racist comment in a diff was made by Casliber, not SandyGeorgia. Have I missed something? Thanks, and sorry for bringing this reminder of the RfC to your talk page. Geometry guy 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse. You have much to give Wikipedia - indeed, you have already given much. I haven't been paying much attention to the RFC after I left a couple of comments, but I did notice that you had me down on a list of those you would consider as mentors, and I did think about it. I thought very seriously about it as I really do think you are a net benefit to the project. But I'm not sure you'd listen to me. I really don't. I don't think you'd ignore my advice, or be confrontational, or do anything really nasty. But I think you get a bit hot headed now and again when something stirs you up, and you'd go off and do your own thing. And I don't think I could deal with that. I wondered, though, if we could talk on-Wiki about some of the problems you've been having. Problems with what may be called the "senior" Wikipedians, such as Sandy.
I think it would be helpful to explore the issues to see where your relationship with her (and any others you'd like to talk about) broke down. To see how much was your fault, how much was her fault, and how much was misunderstanding or circumstances.
But I wouldn't like to do that against a background of confrontation and ill-feeling. I feel it will be a tricky enough route anyway, and will involve a lot of reading, and some communication with Sandy herself. If I'm doing that against a background of you making comments about her, that would just sidetrack discussions, and we wouldn't get anywhere.
Would you be willing to discuss your issues regarding Sandy with me? I could set up a sub-page for us to talk. And would you in the meantime stop making ANY comments on the RFC (I think that RFC is doing more harm than good, and commenting on it is just feeding the bad will). Would you stop making ANY comments (good or bad) about Sandy on any page other than the one I set up where you can talk freely about Sandy. But, until we resolve this issue, would you be able to stop talking about her elsewhere?
Have a think about it and get back to me on my talkpage. Regards. SilkTork * YES! 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing. I don't know quite what you mean by "removing templates". Cite templates are more or less required under WP:MOS. The article also contain geographical coordinate templates (which you can skip over while reading, but are uselful to some) and quote templates (which are also supported in MOS as a way of making quotes appear correctly).-- Grahame ( talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)