This page 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. |
Please use more restraint when adding to the request for clarification; rehashing old arguments is unhelpful. Bear in mind that whenever you make a post reiterating your position, someone else may be tempted to reply, reiterating their position, and so it continues. Last week, this got out of hand, and you were blocked. Your advisors are prepared to block you again if this recurs.
Thus far, no one has responded, and so you can still reduce or remove your post. In general, I advise you to respond only to new information, and with new information. You should also avoid making any post which may be considered pointy or irritating. I recommend you consult with advisors and await a response before adding to the request for clarification. We can also comment on your behalf. Geometry guy 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I have advised you not to make a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia. I've become aware of this [1]. If you wish to make a comment about another Wikipedia editor you must first consult via email with one of your advisors, and then wait for a response - no matter how long that response takes.
Be advised that I will block you for an initial 24 hours if I become aware of you making a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia without having been given advice by an advisor to make such a comment. And depending on the circumstances this block may be extended until an appropriate action is taken by you to remedy any potential harm by making such a comment.
I will discuss this and other related matters with Geometry guy on his talkpage. SilkTork * YES! 09:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse. If you can spare a little time from your lengthening to-do list, another editor asked me for some advise and I realised that the job needs more info than I have. Bugboy52.40 has got Insect to GA and is raring to go to work on lower-level insect taxa. Organising the info requires a lot of thought, as there are millions of species, so at least hundreds of genera, and so up the taxonomic tree. Bugboy52.40 asked me if Hide/show boxes would help, and I listed some disadvantages. List-class articles and/or Categories might be worth using. I haven't used these, so I promised to see if I can get some advice. Do you do about List-class articles and/or Categories, or all ways or organising huge numbers of related articles? Do you do know others editors how know much about this type of task? AFAIK you've had no previous contact with Bugboy52.40, and I've enjoyed our (limited) discussions. So I think it would be fine for you to post at Bugboy52.40's Talk page any info, leads, etc. on how to marshal the millions. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your image uploads. Could you please start using more specific licenses for the government images you upload? Instead of PD-USGov for Fish and Wildlife Service images, use PD-USGov-Interior-FWS, or PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA for NOAA images. Thanks.-- Monkeybait ( talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Khrushchev did pass FA. You are cordially invited to the celebration in Red Square. You can stand on top of Lenin's Tomb with me. Problem's going to be digging up enough Soviet weaponry, it's all been scrapped or sold off, to have a good parade. Bring your mittens!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse, many thanks for fixing some things at Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. I enjoyed the 2nd game in the series over 10 years ago, and recently a found a Web article on history of RTS games, which made a case that Warcraft: Orcs & Humans is the 2nd most important game in the genre - then further articles that agree on its importance (only Dune II ranks more important). Funny how one can get into topics :-) -- Philcha ( talk) 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nic_kanpurdchat_jatropha.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Image.78_robert_johnson_3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang ( talk) 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The 100 DYK Medal | ||
Congratulations! It is a pleasure to present you with this shiny gold medal, in recognition of your achievement in reaching this milestone, and with thanks for all the hard work involved. Here's to the next 100 appearances on the Main Page! Bencherlite Talk 11:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you for your quick assessment of the DYK part. Obviously, I would like to see the article make it to full DYK status, and appreciate your alternative hook line. You have far more knowledge of DYK than me, so can I ask you this. Is the idea of the hook to draw the casual reader into the article proper, or provide a snappy one-line overview of the topic ? The reason I ask is, do you think my original hook has an air of mystery that might draw some readers in to explore further, whilst your's partly gives the game away, so to speak ? Or, does it not really matter either way. Best wishes,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bat star at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for verifying the 5x expansion. I didn't do it for DYK but after a few days thought that it was potential DYK material, changing a 3 year old stub to a longer article. That article is no where near finished. I think I can do another expansion from 1k to 20k eventually. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't thank you enough for that bog turtle picture.-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help concerning the William B. Slaughter article. I was using the sandbox to try it out so I would goof up the article itself- RFD ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I responded at the nom page, with the relevant quote from the cited source. Cirt ( talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Didn't pay too much attention to the edits, but I would like to know if you finished the copy-edits of Gin Tama. If not, no hurries. Take your time. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, thanks for tagging that delorazepam article, I shall try and add some refs to it over the coming days. I have been meaning for some time to apologise to you for biting your head off that time on the benzo FAC. I made a comment which was a personal attack and it was over the top and you didn't deserve it. All I can say was I had multiple disputes going on, ADHD arbcom, major benzo dispute, harassed by Mwalla sockpuppets and I was at boiling point, you made some posts which I found not fair and I grossly over-reacted. I delayed apologising to you as I figured that it would not look sincere as I was in an arbcom at the time and thought that you might take it as me trying to make myself look good. This is the season of goodwill so from me to you I sincerely apologise and hope that you accept my honest apology and understand things from my perspective. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. The sociology article has been greatly improved over the past few months and we are looking for reviewers! It isn't of featured status, but I certainly think it deserves higher than its current B rating, ie. GA status. Please be a reviewer, or lend further advice! -- Tomsega ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to hit the rollback button as I was stepping through diffs, I've rolled back my rollback, so it should be back to the version you last edited. I do apologize. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, I noticed a few DYK hooks that you rejected because they were too short, but that had been moved from userspace recently. According to rule F3, an article still counts as new if it has been in userspace before. Just a friendly reminder for the future. Ucucha 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse. Your statement on the clarification page says that you checked the FAC for the Swedish Allotment System and found no familiar names. However, I notice that Bishonen is given prime credit for the article in the first line of the nomination, [4]. Might it be a good idea to revise your statement somehow? -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To me Mattise has made the right call on this article. Its a 2005 FA which looks well off the current standards. It looks to me that Mattisse has acted in good faith on article and its talk page. -- Salix ( talk): 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mattisse - your current trajectory at the Request for Clarification is taking you right in the direction of another block. You overreacted to Jooperscoopers post without consulting with your advisors (as far as I am aware), and are now acting as if you think you can solve Wikipedia's problems. You have to trust Arbitrators to make good decisions. Restrict your comments purely to clarifications of questions by other editors, and stop trying to make a point, or you will be blocked to prevent further disruption of process. Geometry guy 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I endorse G Guy's block. I understand Mattisse's frustrations. I hope she is able at the moment to appreciate our own frustrations, and to respect how much time we are devoting to this issue.
I also understand RegentsPark's disagreement regarding the sanction. I would, however, rather err on the side of caution than undo a lot of the good work that has been accomplished recently. The RfC page is a hotspot - it is an arena where things have and can again spark off quite quickly, derailing the progress we have been making. Mattisse is herself aware that there are incidents and arenas which cause her stress and cause her to say and do things that create problems.
To remind Mattisse, I will point out User:Mattisse/Plan#Coping_techiques:
Techniques to reduce stress:
1. Disengage from interactions in which I feel stress or negative emotions before my behavior become problematic.
2. Consciously copy the editing behavior of good role models such as SilkTork and Geometry guy, especially their methods of disengaging early in a discussion.
3. Consciously be aware that I do not have to address points registered against me, but can choose to disengage instead.
4. Refrain from tendency to answer every point made in remarks to me.
...
8. Edit at a lesser volume
9. Initiate frequent consultation with trusted advisers/mentors to gain perspective and to prevent the build up of stress
10. Follow the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past.
And User:Mattisse/Plan#Consequences_for_failure_to_adhere_to_plan:
This proposal is an escalating series of consequences for a failure to adhere to the plan, ending with a return to the jurisdiction of ArbCom:
1. Wikibreaks as suggested by my mentors/advisers
2. Temporary page or topic bans
Punishments:
1. Short blocks after a warning
2. Punishment in the form of blocks of escalating length, after warning.
We are carrying out the plan as drafted by Mattisse and approved by ArbCom.
SilkTork *
YES!
00:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, just curious as to why you removed a supporting source, however "unreliable" you may deem it, and reverted instead to a totally unsupported statement? Re: this edit comparison, and precisely this statement "The family moved often during Zappa's childhood because his father, a chemist and mathematician, had various jobs in the US defense industry." and this reference http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html -- doesn't it seem somewhat inappropriate and inaccurate to slap a "spam" moniker on a very specific reference providing (or attempting to provide) very specific support? As Wikipedia is a work essentially forever in progress, doesn't that fairly carry to its supporting research? I wouldn't call honest attempts at support "spam", and I'd think most minds would not welcome speedy attempts to scrub honest ongoing research. EastGhost ( talk) 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Fwiw, I agree with your removal of the tag. I had inserted it to avoid biting 71.190.97.179. Cheers, DVdm ( talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mons Venus. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your addition of the {{ refimprove}} tag as a brief glance at the bibliography shows that the article is in fact thoroughly referenced to reliable sources. Whilst in-line citations may be preferred by some there is no policy mandating them. Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
My comments linked to above were made in the context of the conversation on the evolving "Clarification" and were not intended to be reified. The Clarification has not been settled and I do not intend to do anything more than follow their strictures. As stated previously, only statements with definite time frames are to be taken literally. To say that I will not do DYKs in response to a casual comment on my talk page means "for now" as I made clear on the DYK page. (I tend to to dozens of DYKs at once and get burned out and so stop for a while.) As for FAR, FAC, processes, I will abide by the Clarification mandates. FA processes are much less rewarding and massively more draining and more punishing than DYK or GAN so the likelihood for my engagement in the future is dramatically less. (But nothing is permanent. Change on Wikipedia should be welcomed and not forbidden, and evolving statements should not be stored to use as traps.)
I will follow the Clarification outcome regarding FA processes as well as other processes. If the Clarification mandates it, I will also refrain from improving, correcting spelling and grammar, evaluating sources and such for articles that already at FA status. I used to try to check the "Main Page" article for errors but will no longer do that for the time being. I'll let the errors remain for now. I used to be told to comment on the article talk page, but since that seems to enrage FA article owners, I will no longer do so for FA articles for now. To repeat, I will abide by the Clarification outcome. Remarks where I am thinking out loud or sending up trial balloons to my mentors or other should not be used as attempts to trap me in the future. Rather than follow my every trial remark to my mentors or to posters on my talk page, let's all agree to follow the directions of the ArbCom. It is agreed that we are all human here, isn't it? And after all, the cultural atmosphere dominating at the FA processes may change in the future and become more pleasant and rewarding. Anything can happen, so no comment or "thinking out loud" statement that I made or will make should be considered permanent to use as a trap, as all that does is shut down on wiki conversation between me an my advisers, not a goal to be sought. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to propose that My Plan be modified to take into account what ArbCom currently sees as my problems. Much of the plan concerns behaviors I no longer engage in. Making off-the-cuff comments to posters on my talk page regarding dyk, and thinking out loud to my mentors are not problems the arbs mention as major. If these sorts of complaints are encouraged on the "alerts" page, that page will soon degenerate into the "circus" and/or "train wreck" that the Arbitration and Clarification did because of the volume of trivial, misleading complaints made there. Minor, frivolous complaints, or complaints that target human venting in frustration that are not uncivil or personal attacks, out-of-date complains, voluminous, wordy complaints, or complaints by editors who are not involved in the incident but are merely following my contributions and talk page looking for incidents to report should be discouraged. The complaints should be by stake holders, not the police. Further, as they did in the Arbitration, in the Clarification arbs recognize that much of the complaining about me is frivolous or unwarranted or just plain wrong. e.g. [10] Please, let us concentrate on what is important and recognize that I am fallible but trying. At a time when the subject is whether or not I will be banned from FAC, DYK etc., statements of ventilation by me made in personal contexts should not be help against me. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have noted the comments made by SandyGeorgia, and further replied to them. Your apparent perception that she was trying to reify your posts does not allow for the alternative interpretation that she was simply drawing attention to failures on your part to stick to your plan. However, there are more substantial issues than these.
To end on a positive note, I can see you are trying, and am glad you recognise your own fallibility and are showing a greater willingness to tolerate the fallibility of others. Geometry guy 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here
For the Arbitration Committee,
Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, now that arbcom has done with the clarification and we know where we all stand, I do suggest that you ask before you post anything that remotely comments on an editor. And, please, please don't respond to anything without first getting some input from one of your mentors. You are at an immense disadvantage (possibly for good reasons) in any discussion and you should recognize that if you get into a back and forth with anyone you are almost certainly going to end up with a block. Which, I suspect, cannot be nice at all. There is plenty of stuff to do on wikipedia, and moving on is always a good idea!-- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 01:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.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:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks you for the messages when I needed support. I will have to take it slow for some time, but I know where my WP priorities and friends are. -- Philcha ( talk) 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The Good Friend Award | ||
When I really need you, Mattisse - from -- Philcha ( talk) 07:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
See User_talk:Cody574#Removing_citation_tags. Cody 574 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I posted this on Usenet earlier today. Any idea? - DVdm ( talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User:HJensen has the insight, understanding and appreciation of Zappa to give you a meaningful answer. He semi-retired from Wikipedia due to a travesty of events, but he still comes around sometimes and he usually answers his talk page. I am sure he has a feel for what was going on then.
We really worked uphill on that article as not many Wikipedians seemed to appreciate its depth.
Warmest regards,
— Mattisse ( Talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I know you and I don't get along too well, but I wish nothing but wonderful things for you. Have an excellent holiday and a more excellent 2010. Merry Christmas. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Christmas, Mattisse. This place would not be the same without you, and I hope you have a wonderful and productive 2010 in Wikipedia. -- JN 466 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings of the Season | ||
A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
I echo Moni's sentiments, and wish to add that I hope the New Year brings you great joy and happiness! U A 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The online version is only in PDF, here is the [ [12]] I left the one I used because it gives the full citation which the PDF does not - and you can click to the PDF on the right menu from that page. Obviously it would take about 5 seconds to change this, let me know if I should. Thanks for your work. Peace, Earthdirt ( talk) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
In any case, I see you have dedicated much good work in the area of WP:Featured articles... and I am just now looking in that direction (having done my stint at RC patrol, and some current events wrangling on high profile BLPs).
The question of what "good" means in Wikipedia is something I must develop my understanding of. If you know of any essays you believe shine a "good" :-) light on that, please share them. Happy holidays and best wishes for a beautiful 2010. Proofreader77 ( interact) 01:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings:
Thanks for your review of the DYK.
I was wondering how to progress the movement, since so much time has been spent going around that I don't want the clock to run out. I think the article is important due to the rich history of events in which this ship participated.
Thanks, Leonard G. ( talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I want to add my translation of a humanist′s poem about Pope Alexander VI to the article about the Pope (together with the Latin original). Can you look at my English attempt? Is it correct? Thank you.
-- Aloysius ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep warm, keep well. SilkTork * YES! 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This user helped promote Arthur Eve to good article status. |
Yeah, that works. Thanks. The Flash {talk} 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the sourceing issue. For the DYK hook.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for shortening it, it looks great! I linked to some sources about Shamsolvaezin editing newspapers, and added that fact back in. CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I didn't want to review the article, I just wanted to give my thoughts on it. Candyo32 ( talk) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw the review and thought that I had addressed all of the concerns. I then left a message for the reviewer on Jan 10. Please take a look let me know what you think. Racepacket ( talk) 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
See talkpage. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, I noticed you transcluded the GA review at Talk:World War II. It's actually already transcluded further up on the page, so I've undone yours. Thanks anyways though! Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
For whatever this is worth, I trust your edits to this article and am not deliberately editing over you. I'm not keeping track of who is inserting what as edits are being made too quickly. I apologize if we're conflicting. I appreciate what you are doing and I am glad we are working toward a common goal. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm impressed by the collaborative work on this article about an unfolding disaster. However, such articles also generate stresses and frustrations. While this edit raises issues about selective use of source material, it isn't phrased in a way conducive to collaboration. In particular, the suggestion of article ownership in the last sentence is inappropriate and unhelpful in this context, as well as being contrary to your plan: I advise striking it. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Mattisse, best, always, not to react in anger. I quick look shows you're doing a fine job on the article and other editors appear to appreciate that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 23:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I have made nothing but positive (constructive) edits to the article. Indeed, my adittions with references have straightened out may confusions. But because I was directed to strke out comments to the talk page and did so, I am banned from the article? As I have stated, I have no intention of every contributing to the article again, but what is the logic to this ban? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I suspect G guy is busy trying to fix the issues on the Alert page, the link you requested is here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Some reply. I have ceased following the article and sources, and since it would take a lot of work to update myself, I am willing to avoid editing the article. The "lead editor" has a view with which I disagree, so it is better to let that view prevail. Thus I wish to strike all my comments. I am deeply regretful that I ever contributed to the article and wish I could remove my contributions as well, but of course I know I cannot. As far as not seeing your comments, I have a severe eyesight problem and when comments are not well formated for reading, I have difficulty. Thus, you ban notice is still hard for me to find. Regarding "wow", I have seen that used many times effectively by other editors and so I copied it. It is a common device on Wikipedia. Please point out any questions that I have not answered. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Replied to your comment. -- TIAYN ( talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your point - i've suggested an alt text. hamiltonstone ( talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Replied. The leftorium 14:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I haven't been on-wiki much the past few days. I've responded here. BrainyBabe ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, thank you very much for finding a bad reference in Music of Minnesota. Two, however, of your taggings are wrong. Please take it easy. Why the sudden interest in this article? - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI. No response necessary. Best wishes (as always). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, this article which you reviewed for GA last year is currently at peer review. It was promoted to GA last November, and I'd like to see if it might be worth nominating for FA at some point. If you feel you would like to contribute to the peer review, I'd be very grateful for your feedback. On the other hand, I haven't forgotten that you swore to avoid the topic in future, and if you still feel that way about it, then please follow your feelings! Best, -- JN 466 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, there is a new alert about your remarks on choices for the featured article on 1st April at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#April_Fool.27s_TFA_discussion. I must admit that I'm puzzled as to why you chose to frame your remarks in the way you did. If your broader point is that the article may not be well received by the general public (because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny) then why would you enter the discussion with this remark, directed as it is at an editor with whom you have had issues in the past. Reasonable people may agree with your later arguments if you make them reasonably but allegations that editors who frequent the FA page only care for their own 'chuckles' is both hardly likely to get your views heard and is, as well, extremely impolite. My suggestion is that you strike your entire set of remarks on that talk page and then, either make your point in a reasonable way, or withdraw yourself from the discussion. I have a further question to ask of you but will wait till this settles before asking it. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Good. Now please don't react to anything and keep your head down. You've expressed your view on the topic, let others express theirs. Now for my question. Are you deliberately trying to get in trouble? I can't imagine you consider your initial remark anything but aggressive and the remark about 'chuckles' anything but impolite. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The recent incident appears to be another example of article ownership. It seems that if an opinion is given on whether or not one thinks an article is appropriate for TFA, the article's editor takes personal umbrage: bugger all to do with a "spirit of cooperation" ?? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, I saw the comment earlier. That's what I mean by "don't react to anything and keep your head down". I expected that you'll get some flak after your last post (that's why I banned you from that talk page) and suggest you ignore that flak completely. Even on your own talk page. Starting now. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This will date me, but I'd never heard of the lady before I got involved with Alejandro! :) -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 02:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse. The first four "not in citation" tags you added here today on the Alzheimer's disease article in the pharmacueticals section do not appear to be correct. Each drug appears in the citation given and if you go to each drug and click on "brand name" it gives you the brand names as cited. (The fifth one, Memantine, does now only cite one of the brand names.) Thanks. Fainites barley scribs 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, thanks for looking over this. It does need quite a bit of work, and I've been considering sending it to FAR for a while. What do you think? – Juliancolton | Talk 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied there, thanks. fetch comms ☛ 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for working with me on Stephen Corry's DYK section. I have put forward two alternatives that respect the length limit. I think the first ALT works better as a hook by providing the information that he is an indigenous rights advocate. I hope everything is ok now. If there is anything else missing, please let me know. Again, thank you for your time. Maziotis ( talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been working mostly by myself on the article and I think it could use a fresh pair of eyes. I remember all you did to improve history of evolutionary thought and On the Origin of Species and I thought you might be able to help with Mary Anning also if you found it interesting. I am hoping to nominate it for GA soon. I know you are always busy with lots of different things on Wikipedia, but if you do have the time to take a quick look I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks Rusty Cashman ( talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied there, thanks. fetch comms ☛ 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse. Graham87 agreed to be interviewed. Would you like to co-write an article with me (it would go in the Special Story section of SignPost). I'd be honored if you agreed to do so. Regards. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for working with me on Stephen Corry's DYK section. I have put forward two alternatives that respect the length limit. I think the first ALT works better as a hook by providing the information that he is an indigenous rights advocate. I hope everything is ok now. If there is anything else missing, please let me know. Again, thank you for your time. Maziotis ( talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey mattisse, long time no see! Would you be interested in reading July 2009 Ürümqi riots to do a quick-and-dirty check for NPOV, and letting me know if anything about it seems POV to you? The article was recently at FAC and was pretty much derailed by the [misplaced, in my opinion] POV concerns of one editor. I've nominated it for a peer review, here, so if you like you can leave comments there, or just read it informally.
But if you're too busy right now, I totally understand, so don't feel like you're under any obligation to look at this. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 06:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have asked five times at WT:WIAFA that you stop making implications about FAC editors and stay on topic (Public domain text). Please consult your advisors. [17] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thx for ticking Lowes Dickinson. Your comment about the image map was ambiguous (to me). Did you mean that you couldnt work out what it was? If so then run a cursor over the picture.... If you mean you think the image map is a confusion for the main page then I can change it to a jpg. Oh and hello again Victuallers ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh OK, it is tricky to see the image so small - its only a gimmick at that size and yes wikipedia (and me) consider it is a free image. The National Portrait Gallery are threatening court action but wikipedia are resolute. If any admin had an issue then I'm sure another could be found. Victuallers ( talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure is the article Franz Anton Knittel is long enough for the DYK nom. The article is based on this source (1830). Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, is it necessary for you to post on Malleus's talk page? It sure looks like you're doing the worst kind of poking and baiting. If I'm off-base I apologize, but it seems to me that you are also a good editor who gets frustrated with some of the disputes that go on here, so I'm suprise that you would be engaged in making comments that aren't constructive when someone is fed up. Again, if I'm misunderstanding I apologize. I'm tired. And I'm off. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just read Malleus's talk page. The good point to consider here is that you disengaged after ChildofMidnight pointed out that you were out of order. The disturbing point is that even at this stage you had to be told to disengage, and that you got involved in the first place. Getting involved in a squabble because somebody disagrees with your editing on an article is one thing. Reacting to comments about you is one thing. But deliberately posting provocative comments on somebody's talkpage is quite another - especially after you have been repeatedly warned not to do this. We can't let this incident go Mattisse. We can't simply shake our head after the event and say that you were naughty, but how good you were to disengage when asked - because the damage has already been done. I have given you a warning about this - and that warning was directly in relation to the same person. In line with that warning, and the agreed procedure in your Plan I am now blocking you for 24 hours and will consult with the others as to how we are to proceed. SilkTork * YES! 09:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, I've often thought that you go through cycles, with longer good periods and then burst of trouble. I thought it was about 15 days between burst of trouble, and planned to suggest that you avoid comment pages of any types from 5 days starting about 12 days after the beginning of the last burst of trouble. This incident is only 9 days since User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_26#April_Fool.27s_TFA, where you were also blocked, and makes it impossible to predict trouble. I think you need to go through all your incidents, including those that did not lead to blocks, and analyse objectively how and why you go into trouble - it seems you are the only person who may have any chance of predict trouble and hence averting it. -- Philcha ( talk) 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|This block is unnecessarily humiliating and demeaning. I was blocked punitively without proper warning, contrary to
my mentoring plan. (The warning was three months ago, and not recent so it is not relevant to this block.) Blocks for punitive purposes are contrary to Wikipedia policies. I had already ceased the behavior in question, as shown by posts on my talk page. The talkpage remarks I was blocked for were no different from many others on that talk page. I was not asked to refactor or remove my remarks, or given any chance. I did not violate any policy or guideline. My mentoring plan states that all blocks should be proceeded by warnings and that blocks should only be used as a last resort. This was not the procedure followed here. This block is unnecessarily demeaning and does not prevent anything. It only evokes ill will.}}
Hi Mattisse. I think your unblock request is more likely to be successful if you remove the statement that: "The behavior was not uncivil or a personal attack". It was uncivil, as was explained in the discussion above. That you've been treated unkindly by others doesn't make it okay to do the same in return.
Apart from that I agree with you and am sorry to see you blocked. I don't see how it's helpful or appropriate, but oh well. Maybe it's best to reflect on it all and do other things for a while. Maybe some day this community will promote a more virtuous cycle of interactions, rather than this one based on threats and punishments. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattisse, I don't think I've seen that particular tool before. It looks useful. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The terms of My Plan have been violated.
--Situations in which I tended to become stressed (per Ling.Nut's request)--
--Consequences for failure to adhere to plan-- Punishments:
Since the conditions of My Plan are not being adhered to by my mentors/advisors and they are violating the conditions of the Plan, I wish to dissolve it. It is being used abusively and only produces ill will and bad feelings. I no longer have faith in my mentors/advisors. I think I will do better without them. At least I could not be blocked without warning by other admins for my wrongs. Nothing I did warranted a block without a warning.
The current block is precisely the situation I sought to avoid in My Plan. My Plan is being ignored and my mentors/advisers have decided to make up their own rules.
Mattisse
— Mattisse ( Talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
— Mattisse ( Talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You remain under conduct probation until advised otherwise. If you do not remove this post commenting negatively on another editor, you will be blocked. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This was not a seriously problematic discussion, but all editors involved, including myself, may obtain a more objective perspective by stepping back for a while.
Geometry guy
00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
The tail does not wag the dog. If you continue to dictate to your advisors how they should enforce your conduct probation you will be blocked. Geometry guy 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
|
If I may make a suggestion, why don't you continue this conversation on the Wikipedia Review discussion forum ( http://www.wikipediareview.com ). Malleus is a member there, Mattisse, and contributors are free to speak their mind there without fear of being blocked for violating AGF, being incivil etc. -- JN 466 00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This page 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. |
Please use more restraint when adding to the request for clarification; rehashing old arguments is unhelpful. Bear in mind that whenever you make a post reiterating your position, someone else may be tempted to reply, reiterating their position, and so it continues. Last week, this got out of hand, and you were blocked. Your advisors are prepared to block you again if this recurs.
Thus far, no one has responded, and so you can still reduce or remove your post. In general, I advise you to respond only to new information, and with new information. You should also avoid making any post which may be considered pointy or irritating. I recommend you consult with advisors and await a response before adding to the request for clarification. We can also comment on your behalf. Geometry guy 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I have advised you not to make a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia. I've become aware of this [1]. If you wish to make a comment about another Wikipedia editor you must first consult via email with one of your advisors, and then wait for a response - no matter how long that response takes.
Be advised that I will block you for an initial 24 hours if I become aware of you making a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia without having been given advice by an advisor to make such a comment. And depending on the circumstances this block may be extended until an appropriate action is taken by you to remedy any potential harm by making such a comment.
I will discuss this and other related matters with Geometry guy on his talkpage. SilkTork * YES! 09:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse. If you can spare a little time from your lengthening to-do list, another editor asked me for some advise and I realised that the job needs more info than I have. Bugboy52.40 has got Insect to GA and is raring to go to work on lower-level insect taxa. Organising the info requires a lot of thought, as there are millions of species, so at least hundreds of genera, and so up the taxonomic tree. Bugboy52.40 asked me if Hide/show boxes would help, and I listed some disadvantages. List-class articles and/or Categories might be worth using. I haven't used these, so I promised to see if I can get some advice. Do you do about List-class articles and/or Categories, or all ways or organising huge numbers of related articles? Do you do know others editors how know much about this type of task? AFAIK you've had no previous contact with Bugboy52.40, and I've enjoyed our (limited) discussions. So I think it would be fine for you to post at Bugboy52.40's Talk page any info, leads, etc. on how to marshal the millions. -- Philcha ( talk) 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your image uploads. Could you please start using more specific licenses for the government images you upload? Instead of PD-USGov for Fish and Wildlife Service images, use PD-USGov-Interior-FWS, or PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA for NOAA images. Thanks.-- Monkeybait ( talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Khrushchev did pass FA. You are cordially invited to the celebration in Red Square. You can stand on top of Lenin's Tomb with me. Problem's going to be digging up enough Soviet weaponry, it's all been scrapped or sold off, to have a good parade. Bring your mittens!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Mattisse, many thanks for fixing some things at Warcraft: Orcs & Humans. I enjoyed the 2nd game in the series over 10 years ago, and recently a found a Web article on history of RTS games, which made a case that Warcraft: Orcs & Humans is the 2nd most important game in the genre - then further articles that agree on its importance (only Dune II ranks more important). Funny how one can get into topics :-) -- Philcha ( talk) 07:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nic_kanpurdchat_jatropha.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rockfang ( talk) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Image.78_robert_johnson_3.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rockfang ( talk) 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The 100 DYK Medal | ||
Congratulations! It is a pleasure to present you with this shiny gold medal, in recognition of your achievement in reaching this milestone, and with thanks for all the hard work involved. Here's to the next 100 appearances on the Main Page! Bencherlite Talk 11:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC) |
Thank you for your quick assessment of the DYK part. Obviously, I would like to see the article make it to full DYK status, and appreciate your alternative hook line. You have far more knowledge of DYK than me, so can I ask you this. Is the idea of the hook to draw the casual reader into the article proper, or provide a snappy one-line overview of the topic ? The reason I ask is, do you think my original hook has an air of mystery that might draw some readers in to explore further, whilst your's partly gives the game away, so to speak ? Or, does it not really matter either way. Best wishes,
Derek R Bullamore ( talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Bat star at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist ( talk) 08:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for verifying the 5x expansion. I didn't do it for DYK but after a few days thought that it was potential DYK material, changing a 3 year old stub to a longer article. That article is no where near finished. I think I can do another expansion from 1k to 20k eventually. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 20:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't thank you enough for that bog turtle picture.-- NYMFan69-86 ( talk) 20:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help concerning the William B. Slaughter article. I was using the sandbox to try it out so I would goof up the article itself- RFD ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I responded at the nom page, with the relevant quote from the cited source. Cirt ( talk) 20:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Didn't pay too much attention to the edits, but I would like to know if you finished the copy-edits of Gin Tama. If not, no hurries. Take your time. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 02:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, thanks for tagging that delorazepam article, I shall try and add some refs to it over the coming days. I have been meaning for some time to apologise to you for biting your head off that time on the benzo FAC. I made a comment which was a personal attack and it was over the top and you didn't deserve it. All I can say was I had multiple disputes going on, ADHD arbcom, major benzo dispute, harassed by Mwalla sockpuppets and I was at boiling point, you made some posts which I found not fair and I grossly over-reacted. I delayed apologising to you as I figured that it would not look sincere as I was in an arbcom at the time and thought that you might take it as me trying to make myself look good. This is the season of goodwill so from me to you I sincerely apologise and hope that you accept my honest apology and understand things from my perspective. :)-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 02:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. The sociology article has been greatly improved over the past few months and we are looking for reviewers! It isn't of featured status, but I certainly think it deserves higher than its current B rating, ie. GA status. Please be a reviewer, or lend further advice! -- Tomsega ( talk) 17:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not mean to hit the rollback button as I was stepping through diffs, I've rolled back my rollback, so it should be back to the version you last edited. I do apologize. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, I noticed a few DYK hooks that you rejected because they were too short, but that had been moved from userspace recently. According to rule F3, an article still counts as new if it has been in userspace before. Just a friendly reminder for the future. Ucucha 01:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse. Your statement on the clarification page says that you checked the FAC for the Swedish Allotment System and found no familiar names. However, I notice that Bishonen is given prime credit for the article in the first line of the nomination, [4]. Might it be a good idea to revise your statement somehow? -- Slp1 ( talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
To me Mattise has made the right call on this article. Its a 2005 FA which looks well off the current standards. It looks to me that Mattisse has acted in good faith on article and its talk page. -- Salix ( talk): 23:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mattisse - your current trajectory at the Request for Clarification is taking you right in the direction of another block. You overreacted to Jooperscoopers post without consulting with your advisors (as far as I am aware), and are now acting as if you think you can solve Wikipedia's problems. You have to trust Arbitrators to make good decisions. Restrict your comments purely to clarifications of questions by other editors, and stop trying to make a point, or you will be blocked to prevent further disruption of process. Geometry guy 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I endorse G Guy's block. I understand Mattisse's frustrations. I hope she is able at the moment to appreciate our own frustrations, and to respect how much time we are devoting to this issue.
I also understand RegentsPark's disagreement regarding the sanction. I would, however, rather err on the side of caution than undo a lot of the good work that has been accomplished recently. The RfC page is a hotspot - it is an arena where things have and can again spark off quite quickly, derailing the progress we have been making. Mattisse is herself aware that there are incidents and arenas which cause her stress and cause her to say and do things that create problems.
To remind Mattisse, I will point out User:Mattisse/Plan#Coping_techiques:
Techniques to reduce stress:
1. Disengage from interactions in which I feel stress or negative emotions before my behavior become problematic.
2. Consciously copy the editing behavior of good role models such as SilkTork and Geometry guy, especially their methods of disengaging early in a discussion.
3. Consciously be aware that I do not have to address points registered against me, but can choose to disengage instead.
4. Refrain from tendency to answer every point made in remarks to me.
...
8. Edit at a lesser volume
9. Initiate frequent consultation with trusted advisers/mentors to gain perspective and to prevent the build up of stress
10. Follow the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past.
And User:Mattisse/Plan#Consequences_for_failure_to_adhere_to_plan:
This proposal is an escalating series of consequences for a failure to adhere to the plan, ending with a return to the jurisdiction of ArbCom:
1. Wikibreaks as suggested by my mentors/advisers
2. Temporary page or topic bans
Punishments:
1. Short blocks after a warning
2. Punishment in the form of blocks of escalating length, after warning.
We are carrying out the plan as drafted by Mattisse and approved by ArbCom.
SilkTork *
YES!
00:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, just curious as to why you removed a supporting source, however "unreliable" you may deem it, and reverted instead to a totally unsupported statement? Re: this edit comparison, and precisely this statement "The family moved often during Zappa's childhood because his father, a chemist and mathematician, had various jobs in the US defense industry." and this reference http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr93.html -- doesn't it seem somewhat inappropriate and inaccurate to slap a "spam" moniker on a very specific reference providing (or attempting to provide) very specific support? As Wikipedia is a work essentially forever in progress, doesn't that fairly carry to its supporting research? I wouldn't call honest attempts at support "spam", and I'd think most minds would not welcome speedy attempts to scrub honest ongoing research. EastGhost ( talk) 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Fwiw, I agree with your removal of the tag. I had inserted it to avoid biting 71.190.97.179. Cheers, DVdm ( talk) 19:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mons Venus. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted your addition of the {{ refimprove}} tag as a brief glance at the bibliography shows that the article is in fact thoroughly referenced to reliable sources. Whilst in-line citations may be preferred by some there is no policy mandating them. Jezhotwells ( talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
My comments linked to above were made in the context of the conversation on the evolving "Clarification" and were not intended to be reified. The Clarification has not been settled and I do not intend to do anything more than follow their strictures. As stated previously, only statements with definite time frames are to be taken literally. To say that I will not do DYKs in response to a casual comment on my talk page means "for now" as I made clear on the DYK page. (I tend to to dozens of DYKs at once and get burned out and so stop for a while.) As for FAR, FAC, processes, I will abide by the Clarification mandates. FA processes are much less rewarding and massively more draining and more punishing than DYK or GAN so the likelihood for my engagement in the future is dramatically less. (But nothing is permanent. Change on Wikipedia should be welcomed and not forbidden, and evolving statements should not be stored to use as traps.)
I will follow the Clarification outcome regarding FA processes as well as other processes. If the Clarification mandates it, I will also refrain from improving, correcting spelling and grammar, evaluating sources and such for articles that already at FA status. I used to try to check the "Main Page" article for errors but will no longer do that for the time being. I'll let the errors remain for now. I used to be told to comment on the article talk page, but since that seems to enrage FA article owners, I will no longer do so for FA articles for now. To repeat, I will abide by the Clarification outcome. Remarks where I am thinking out loud or sending up trial balloons to my mentors or other should not be used as attempts to trap me in the future. Rather than follow my every trial remark to my mentors or to posters on my talk page, let's all agree to follow the directions of the ArbCom. It is agreed that we are all human here, isn't it? And after all, the cultural atmosphere dominating at the FA processes may change in the future and become more pleasant and rewarding. Anything can happen, so no comment or "thinking out loud" statement that I made or will make should be considered permanent to use as a trap, as all that does is shut down on wiki conversation between me an my advisers, not a goal to be sought. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to propose that My Plan be modified to take into account what ArbCom currently sees as my problems. Much of the plan concerns behaviors I no longer engage in. Making off-the-cuff comments to posters on my talk page regarding dyk, and thinking out loud to my mentors are not problems the arbs mention as major. If these sorts of complaints are encouraged on the "alerts" page, that page will soon degenerate into the "circus" and/or "train wreck" that the Arbitration and Clarification did because of the volume of trivial, misleading complaints made there. Minor, frivolous complaints, or complaints that target human venting in frustration that are not uncivil or personal attacks, out-of-date complains, voluminous, wordy complaints, or complaints by editors who are not involved in the incident but are merely following my contributions and talk page looking for incidents to report should be discouraged. The complaints should be by stake holders, not the police. Further, as they did in the Arbitration, in the Clarification arbs recognize that much of the complaining about me is frivolous or unwarranted or just plain wrong. e.g. [10] Please, let us concentrate on what is important and recognize that I am fallible but trying. At a time when the subject is whether or not I will be banned from FAC, DYK etc., statements of ventilation by me made in personal contexts should not be help against me. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have noted the comments made by SandyGeorgia, and further replied to them. Your apparent perception that she was trying to reify your posts does not allow for the alternative interpretation that she was simply drawing attention to failures on your part to stick to your plan. However, there are more substantial issues than these.
To end on a positive note, I can see you are trying, and am glad you recognise your own fallibility and are showing a greater willingness to tolerate the fallibility of others. Geometry guy 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here
For the Arbitration Committee,
Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, now that arbcom has done with the clarification and we know where we all stand, I do suggest that you ask before you post anything that remotely comments on an editor. And, please, please don't respond to anything without first getting some input from one of your mentors. You are at an immense disadvantage (possibly for good reasons) in any discussion and you should recognize that if you get into a back and forth with anyone you are almost certainly going to end up with a block. Which, I suspect, cannot be nice at all. There is plenty of stuff to do on wikipedia, and moving on is always a good idea!-- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 01:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.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:Lichen encrusted rocks adorn the cliffs of Santa Cruz Island.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 12:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks you for the messages when I needed support. I will have to take it slow for some time, but I know where my WP priorities and friends are. -- Philcha ( talk) 06:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The Good Friend Award | ||
When I really need you, Mattisse - from -- Philcha ( talk) 07:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC) |
See User_talk:Cody574#Removing_citation_tags. Cody 574 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I posted this on Usenet earlier today. Any idea? - DVdm ( talk) 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
User:HJensen has the insight, understanding and appreciation of Zappa to give you a meaningful answer. He semi-retired from Wikipedia due to a travesty of events, but he still comes around sometimes and he usually answers his talk page. I am sure he has a feel for what was going on then.
We really worked uphill on that article as not many Wikipedians seemed to appreciate its depth.
Warmest regards,
— Mattisse ( Talk) 23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I know you and I don't get along too well, but I wish nothing but wonderful things for you. Have an excellent holiday and a more excellent 2010. Merry Christmas. -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Christmas, Mattisse. This place would not be the same without you, and I hope you have a wonderful and productive 2010 in Wikipedia. -- JN 466 15:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings of the Season | ||
A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
I echo Moni's sentiments, and wish to add that I hope the New Year brings you great joy and happiness! U A 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
The online version is only in PDF, here is the [ [12]] I left the one I used because it gives the full citation which the PDF does not - and you can click to the PDF on the right menu from that page. Obviously it would take about 5 seconds to change this, let me know if I should. Thanks for your work. Peace, Earthdirt ( talk) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
In any case, I see you have dedicated much good work in the area of WP:Featured articles... and I am just now looking in that direction (having done my stint at RC patrol, and some current events wrangling on high profile BLPs).
The question of what "good" means in Wikipedia is something I must develop my understanding of. If you know of any essays you believe shine a "good" :-) light on that, please share them. Happy holidays and best wishes for a beautiful 2010. Proofreader77 ( interact) 01:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings:
Thanks for your review of the DYK.
I was wondering how to progress the movement, since so much time has been spent going around that I don't want the clock to run out. I think the article is important due to the rich history of events in which this ship participated.
Thanks, Leonard G. ( talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I want to add my translation of a humanist′s poem about Pope Alexander VI to the article about the Pope (together with the Latin original). Can you look at my English attempt? Is it correct? Thank you.
-- Aloysius ( talk) 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep warm, keep well. SilkTork * YES! 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
This user helped promote Arthur Eve to good article status. |
Yeah, that works. Thanks. The Flash {talk} 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed the sourceing issue. For the DYK hook.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk 11:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for shortening it, it looks great! I linked to some sources about Shamsolvaezin editing newspapers, and added that fact back in. CordeliaNaismith ( talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I didn't want to review the article, I just wanted to give my thoughts on it. Candyo32 ( talk) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I saw the review and thought that I had addressed all of the concerns. I then left a message for the reviewer on Jan 10. Please take a look let me know what you think. Racepacket ( talk) 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
See talkpage. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey Mattisse, I noticed you transcluded the GA review at Talk:World War II. It's actually already transcluded further up on the page, so I've undone yours. Thanks anyways though! Cheers, Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
For whatever this is worth, I trust your edits to this article and am not deliberately editing over you. I'm not keeping track of who is inserting what as edits are being made too quickly. I apologize if we're conflicting. I appreciate what you are doing and I am glad we are working toward a common goal. -- Moni3 ( talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm impressed by the collaborative work on this article about an unfolding disaster. However, such articles also generate stresses and frustrations. While this edit raises issues about selective use of source material, it isn't phrased in a way conducive to collaboration. In particular, the suggestion of article ownership in the last sentence is inappropriate and unhelpful in this context, as well as being contrary to your plan: I advise striking it. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Mattisse, best, always, not to react in anger. I quick look shows you're doing a fine job on the article and other editors appear to appreciate that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 23:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Pinball. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
I have made nothing but positive (constructive) edits to the article. Indeed, my adittions with references have straightened out may confusions. But because I was directed to strke out comments to the talk page and did so, I am banned from the article? As I have stated, I have no intention of every contributing to the article again, but what is the logic to this ban? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I suspect G guy is busy trying to fix the issues on the Alert page, the link you requested is here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Some reply. I have ceased following the article and sources, and since it would take a lot of work to update myself, I am willing to avoid editing the article. The "lead editor" has a view with which I disagree, so it is better to let that view prevail. Thus I wish to strike all my comments. I am deeply regretful that I ever contributed to the article and wish I could remove my contributions as well, but of course I know I cannot. As far as not seeing your comments, I have a severe eyesight problem and when comments are not well formated for reading, I have difficulty. Thus, you ban notice is still hard for me to find. Regarding "wow", I have seen that used many times effectively by other editors and so I copied it. It is a common device on Wikipedia. Please point out any questions that I have not answered. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Replied to your comment. -- TIAYN ( talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your point - i've suggested an alt text. hamiltonstone ( talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Replied. The leftorium 14:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I haven't been on-wiki much the past few days. I've responded here. BrainyBabe ( talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, thank you very much for finding a bad reference in Music of Minnesota. Two, however, of your taggings are wrong. Please take it easy. Why the sudden interest in this article? - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI. No response necessary. Best wishes (as always). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, this article which you reviewed for GA last year is currently at peer review. It was promoted to GA last November, and I'd like to see if it might be worth nominating for FA at some point. If you feel you would like to contribute to the peer review, I'd be very grateful for your feedback. On the other hand, I haven't forgotten that you swore to avoid the topic in future, and if you still feel that way about it, then please follow your feelings! Best, -- JN 466 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, there is a new alert about your remarks on choices for the featured article on 1st April at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#April_Fool.27s_TFA_discussion. I must admit that I'm puzzled as to why you chose to frame your remarks in the way you did. If your broader point is that the article may not be well received by the general public (because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny) then why would you enter the discussion with this remark, directed as it is at an editor with whom you have had issues in the past. Reasonable people may agree with your later arguments if you make them reasonably but allegations that editors who frequent the FA page only care for their own 'chuckles' is both hardly likely to get your views heard and is, as well, extremely impolite. My suggestion is that you strike your entire set of remarks on that talk page and then, either make your point in a reasonable way, or withdraw yourself from the discussion. I have a further question to ask of you but will wait till this settles before asking it. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Good. Now please don't react to anything and keep your head down. You've expressed your view on the topic, let others express theirs. Now for my question. Are you deliberately trying to get in trouble? I can't imagine you consider your initial remark anything but aggressive and the remark about 'chuckles' anything but impolite. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The recent incident appears to be another example of article ownership. It seems that if an opinion is given on whether or not one thinks an article is appropriate for TFA, the article's editor takes personal umbrage: bugger all to do with a "spirit of cooperation" ?? Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, I saw the comment earlier. That's what I mean by "don't react to anything and keep your head down". I expected that you'll get some flak after your last post (that's why I banned you from that talk page) and suggest you ignore that flak completely. Even on your own talk page. Starting now. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
This will date me, but I'd never heard of the lady before I got involved with Alejandro! :) -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 02:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse. The first four "not in citation" tags you added here today on the Alzheimer's disease article in the pharmacueticals section do not appear to be correct. Each drug appears in the citation given and if you go to each drug and click on "brand name" it gives you the brand names as cited. (The fifth one, Memantine, does now only cite one of the brand names.) Thanks. Fainites barley scribs 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse, thanks for looking over this. It does need quite a bit of work, and I've been considering sending it to FAR for a while. What do you think? – Juliancolton | Talk 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied there, thanks. fetch comms ☛ 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for working with me on Stephen Corry's DYK section. I have put forward two alternatives that respect the length limit. I think the first ALT works better as a hook by providing the information that he is an indigenous rights advocate. I hope everything is ok now. If there is anything else missing, please let me know. Again, thank you for your time. Maziotis ( talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have been working mostly by myself on the article and I think it could use a fresh pair of eyes. I remember all you did to improve history of evolutionary thought and On the Origin of Species and I thought you might be able to help with Mary Anning also if you found it interesting. I am hoping to nominate it for GA soon. I know you are always busy with lots of different things on Wikipedia, but if you do have the time to take a quick look I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks Rusty Cashman ( talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Replied there, thanks. fetch comms ☛ 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mattisse. Graham87 agreed to be interviewed. Would you like to co-write an article with me (it would go in the Special Story section of SignPost). I'd be honored if you agreed to do so. Regards. -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 03:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for working with me on Stephen Corry's DYK section. I have put forward two alternatives that respect the length limit. I think the first ALT works better as a hook by providing the information that he is an indigenous rights advocate. I hope everything is ok now. If there is anything else missing, please let me know. Again, thank you for your time. Maziotis ( talk) 14:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey mattisse, long time no see! Would you be interested in reading July 2009 Ürümqi riots to do a quick-and-dirty check for NPOV, and letting me know if anything about it seems POV to you? The article was recently at FAC and was pretty much derailed by the [misplaced, in my opinion] POV concerns of one editor. I've nominated it for a peer review, here, so if you like you can leave comments there, or just read it informally.
But if you're too busy right now, I totally understand, so don't feel like you're under any obligation to look at this. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 06:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have asked five times at WT:WIAFA that you stop making implications about FAC editors and stay on topic (Public domain text). Please consult your advisors. [17] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Thx for ticking Lowes Dickinson. Your comment about the image map was ambiguous (to me). Did you mean that you couldnt work out what it was? If so then run a cursor over the picture.... If you mean you think the image map is a confusion for the main page then I can change it to a jpg. Oh and hello again Victuallers ( talk) 12:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh OK, it is tricky to see the image so small - its only a gimmick at that size and yes wikipedia (and me) consider it is a free image. The National Portrait Gallery are threatening court action but wikipedia are resolute. If any admin had an issue then I'm sure another could be found. Victuallers ( talk) 21:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure is the article Franz Anton Knittel is long enough for the DYK nom. The article is based on this source (1830). Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 22:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, is it necessary for you to post on Malleus's talk page? It sure looks like you're doing the worst kind of poking and baiting. If I'm off-base I apologize, but it seems to me that you are also a good editor who gets frustrated with some of the disputes that go on here, so I'm suprise that you would be engaged in making comments that aren't constructive when someone is fed up. Again, if I'm misunderstanding I apologize. I'm tired. And I'm off. Cheers. Take care. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 02:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just read Malleus's talk page. The good point to consider here is that you disengaged after ChildofMidnight pointed out that you were out of order. The disturbing point is that even at this stage you had to be told to disengage, and that you got involved in the first place. Getting involved in a squabble because somebody disagrees with your editing on an article is one thing. Reacting to comments about you is one thing. But deliberately posting provocative comments on somebody's talkpage is quite another - especially after you have been repeatedly warned not to do this. We can't let this incident go Mattisse. We can't simply shake our head after the event and say that you were naughty, but how good you were to disengage when asked - because the damage has already been done. I have given you a warning about this - and that warning was directly in relation to the same person. In line with that warning, and the agreed procedure in your Plan I am now blocking you for 24 hours and will consult with the others as to how we are to proceed. SilkTork * YES! 09:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Mattisse, I've often thought that you go through cycles, with longer good periods and then burst of trouble. I thought it was about 15 days between burst of trouble, and planned to suggest that you avoid comment pages of any types from 5 days starting about 12 days after the beginning of the last burst of trouble. This incident is only 9 days since User_talk:Mattisse/Archive_26#April_Fool.27s_TFA, where you were also blocked, and makes it impossible to predict trouble. I think you need to go through all your incidents, including those that did not lead to blocks, and analyse objectively how and why you go into trouble - it seems you are the only person who may have any chance of predict trouble and hence averting it. -- Philcha ( talk) 15:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|This block is unnecessarily humiliating and demeaning. I was blocked punitively without proper warning, contrary to
my mentoring plan. (The warning was three months ago, and not recent so it is not relevant to this block.) Blocks for punitive purposes are contrary to Wikipedia policies. I had already ceased the behavior in question, as shown by posts on my talk page. The talkpage remarks I was blocked for were no different from many others on that talk page. I was not asked to refactor or remove my remarks, or given any chance. I did not violate any policy or guideline. My mentoring plan states that all blocks should be proceeded by warnings and that blocks should only be used as a last resort. This was not the procedure followed here. This block is unnecessarily demeaning and does not prevent anything. It only evokes ill will.}}
Hi Mattisse. I think your unblock request is more likely to be successful if you remove the statement that: "The behavior was not uncivil or a personal attack". It was uncivil, as was explained in the discussion above. That you've been treated unkindly by others doesn't make it okay to do the same in return.
Apart from that I agree with you and am sorry to see you blocked. I don't see how it's helpful or appropriate, but oh well. Maybe it's best to reflect on it all and do other things for a while. Maybe some day this community will promote a more virtuous cycle of interactions, rather than this one based on threats and punishments. Cheers. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Mattisse, I don't think I've seen that particular tool before. It looks useful. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 05:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The terms of My Plan have been violated.
--Situations in which I tended to become stressed (per Ling.Nut's request)--
--Consequences for failure to adhere to plan-- Punishments:
Since the conditions of My Plan are not being adhered to by my mentors/advisors and they are violating the conditions of the Plan, I wish to dissolve it. It is being used abusively and only produces ill will and bad feelings. I no longer have faith in my mentors/advisors. I think I will do better without them. At least I could not be blocked without warning by other admins for my wrongs. Nothing I did warranted a block without a warning.
The current block is precisely the situation I sought to avoid in My Plan. My Plan is being ignored and my mentors/advisers have decided to make up their own rules.
Mattisse
— Mattisse ( Talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
— Mattisse ( Talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You remain under conduct probation until advised otherwise. If you do not remove this post commenting negatively on another editor, you will be blocked. Thanks, Geometry guy 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This was not a seriously problematic discussion, but all editors involved, including myself, may obtain a more objective perspective by stepping back for a while.
Geometry guy
00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
|
---|
The tail does not wag the dog. If you continue to dictate to your advisors how they should enforce your conduct probation you will be blocked. Geometry guy 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
|
If I may make a suggestion, why don't you continue this conversation on the Wikipedia Review discussion forum ( http://www.wikipediareview.com ). Malleus is a member there, Mattisse, and contributors are free to speak their mind there without fear of being blocked for violating AGF, being incivil etc. -- JN 466 00:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)