This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I had to rewrite the article anyway, so as it turns out, there is nothing to fix. Someone else removed the tag, I believe. Thanks anyway! --Mattisse13:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template issue
I'm not sure why the template is not working but one thing that is incorrect is that you are using four tildes instead of five, and thus the template is getting your signature, rather than just the time stamp.--Fuhghettaboutit17:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed you fixed it and it seems to be working now. So THANKS! I have been on wikipedia over a year and one half and still cannot figure out instructions! Very frustrated with myself. Thank you so much. --Mattisse17:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. By the way, did you notice the extensive section I posted this morning on the talk page? I was hoping the user would read that, would understand the policies involved better, and that that would help defuse the situation.--Fuhghettaboutit17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for explaining so clearly to the editor on his user page. I don't know if you noticed but I did explain also (not as well as you did) and gave examples of articles and policies but he put comments throughout my post, saying I was basically wrong. Hopefully, he will see you as more credible than he does me. Thanks! Mattisse17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 13 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ellis Rubin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Dear Mattisse,
I have sent you an e-mail. It is very important concerning my book. Will you pls read and reply? If you can't check your e-mail, tell me, I will arrange something else.
Shoovrow13:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just looked at my email and your email is there. Some of it is formated using characters that gmail does not recognize. I will do cut/paste and see if Wikipedia does. I can probably do as you request when I am able to read it -- although, as I have said, I do not quite understand some of what you are writing about, but I certainly recognize and admire your efforts. Sincerely, Mattisse13:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I
Shall I copy the full mail perfectly in some page of mine at wikipedia? But I am afraid this time it'll be better for me if you can do it promptly. Cos Very littele time left for final submission of manuscript to the publisher. But do not worry, just 2 or three sentences will be enough.
Shoovrow14:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will find a portion named as - my e-mail to mattisse. I just made it visible ignoring any rule of wiki. I hope it will help.
Shoovrow14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trade routes has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Havelock the DaneTalk19:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is a helpful person and was kind on the talk page. I have no prev experience regarding WP:FA whatsoever and am a bit spooked due to my botched entry there. As long as a discussion is limited it to the article content I'm sure that I can try my best to find an answer to every question that is put up. Thanks for pointing out some details for me, I appreciate it and will try and put some effort into the process from here on ! Havelock the DaneTalk19:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little more advice: Almost always it is better to respond positively to editors' comments, even if you don't agree. Just do it their way, if you possibly can. Also, you can post on SandyGeorgia's page with questions if you don't quite understand what is going on. She is very responsive. (Be prepared also, that often editors are not in total agreement over particular issues and may give conflicting advice!) You seem to have a good attitude and that cuts down on long-winded arguments that sometimes occur. And going through the process does improve most articles. --Mattisse19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this process will ensure that the article becomes one of the best WP articles before it has the FA stamp and will look forward to anymore expansion that is pointed out by someone and can add to the quality of the article. Please go ahead and make any changes that you seem fit to the article. After seeing your edits on Jim Corbett National Park (and other articles) I'm sure that they'll add to the quality of this article as well. Havelock the DaneTalk20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This FA thing is really frustrating a strange way. Earlier on WP I had to source text and keep WP policies in mind and that was it! I guess I'm still getting used to threadbare discussions like this one. I guess I have been looking rather uncompromising out there so thanks for the pointers. Havelock the DaneTalk07:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has something to add to the article ! This looks more and more like those Zen puzzles which frustrate people (Thanks for showing me the path btw, zen master !). I remember my oath to walk the Silk Route (edit it/fully source it in Wiki terms) as well. Seriously, Jim Corbett National Park, after a WP:GA stamp, would have been a better first FA nom choice for me. Havelock the DaneTalk20:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS looks "very" complicated on reading this, with things like "Very is usually very redundant !" I realize that as long as people ask productive expansions (or simply expansions) to be made to the article the situation is way better than no one responding at all. Even the wait for Jim Corbett national Park GA review has been driving me crazy for a while now. A wait here would have to be bigger and more frustrating. Havelock the DaneTalk08:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, I remember reading about the environmental_issues/trade_routes subject, especially the oil slicks in maritime routes and such, and should hopefully be able to integrate it as soon as my PC stops acting up. Thank you for staying with the FA nom, I would have probably given up if you were not here to guide me through this. Havelock the DaneTalk06:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wormshill
Thanks for the comments. I figure if you can't write a decent article about the place where you grew up then you'll never be able to write a good article! I thoroughly enjoyed doing it and glad another editor appreciates the work. Many thanks Dick G05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not only a "decent" article but well done. No rambling overkill as is frequently the case, plus visually is is lovely with good placement of photos. Mattisse15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more small step
Mattisse,
you have already done what is needed. Just check your e-mail and reply. And that will conclude your nice support. Thank you again. pls check the mail!
Shoovrow15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On October 21st, you added a the advert and fiction tags to the Rappelz article. I am currently working on a rewrite of this article (which has become quite an exquisite example of what poor maintenance can do to a page) and I would like your input into what can be done to address your concerns. Thanks. --Anon 121.209.160.15 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the replied e-mails, you will also find the old words in my talk page. I hope its ok for you if I use the current. But If any problem, let me know by sending e-mail pls.
Shoovrow (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that you actually noticed anything I did relevant to the RFC and bothered to ask me what I mean indicates to me that you are not one of the "admin in-group". I did not mean to imply that all editors involved are part of the "admin in-group" and I am sorry that it sounded like I did so. I certainly was not including you in that statement, and there are others that I do not include. Please accept my apologies. Mattisse14:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary whatsoever. I was just wondering if you somehow thought only admins may comment there. I'm certainly not a "member", mainly because I'm not an admin :D |dorftrottel |humor me15:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A requested article I just started. Thought you might like to take a quick look as it is probably related to your area of expertise. Don't know if the treatment section has a global perspective at the mo, or just reflects how it's dealt with in the UK.Merkinsmum (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting topic, much more complicated than I would have originally thought. The competence (law) article is geared to criminal competence/incompetence. I know there are various competencies related to civil competence, e.g. competence to handle one's own finances etc. It is really not strictly a psychological issues, as I read these articles. If you could nail it down in a few days, it could be a DYK, as I bet it is not something many people have thought about. Mattisse20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put mental competence at first but there was no such article lol. I'm sure there's an article about that part of it, there's probably a proper name for it. In the UK if a person lacks mental competence or whatever the proper word is, it can lead in some cases to power of attorney over their finances etc. being given to their next of kin or maybe even a social worker (?)Merkinsmum (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is, as I wrote the one for Competence (law) and deliberately made it criminal because it fit my needs (selfish) and I didn't feel like looking up all the civil stuff. Mattisse21:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where ever you answered on my talk page, I cannot find it. In Any event, it used reputable sources. Find better ones and substitute your information. Mattisse01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. While I have added a {{Citation needed}} to your interesting article, I don't think the proposition is needed at all. From your article and sources is seems clear that the colony took its guidance from the bible. It goes too far, I think, to say that the basis of English common law is biblical (although no doubt it was an influence). Regards, Kablammo (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, WilyD, thanks for letting me know. I will check out that site. However, I am not sure how IRC #veropedia works although I will give it a try. Regards, Mattisse17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I have Chatzilla, which is IRC I think, and logged on to #veropedia with a nickname. But now what? I cannot tell what it is for or what else to do on it. (I'm not experienced in IRC.) Mattisse
It's essentially a chatroom - there are a bunch of Veropedians there who could answer any questions you might have. But it doesn't seem to me that you're there, unless you've a substantially different nickname. WilyD19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IRC
Err, well we're not always busy. There's typically a bunch of people about. If you've any questions about the project, ask and I'm sure someone will answer. If you're interested in becoming involved, we can set you up for that too. Cheers, WilyD19:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no problem. Veropedia is a very "anti-drama" initiative, and I'd encourage you to come by if you're looking for support with respect to good article writing and no bullshit. If you're anonymous, you can still ask and we can show you about. There may be other ways you could contribute if you were interested. You can email me if you'd prefer a more private discussion, I've my "email this user" button enabled. Cheers, WilyD21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would help you more but today I am in such a depressed mood regarding Wikipedia that if I write at all, it will have to be about murder and mayhem. Sorry, Mattisse17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to our collective efforts the article made it to WP:GA. I thought that I should inform you that our efforts have been successful and we promoted the article to a higher level on the quality scale ! Havelockдатчанин21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! A nice amount of work went into that article. Now you have the hang of it.
Re Trade routes, the input certainly does show that there is a huge amount of interest in it, which must be gratifying to you. I keep trying to think of ways to make it manageable. I am not kidding when I say trade routes were essential to the Western Hemisphere -- the great migrations were along trade routes and it was shipping that sustained the colonies -- and the well established slave trade routes between Britian, the colonies and African, as well as between Spain the Caribbean and African, plus Portugal etc. thrown it. Whatever you people on the other side of the world think (I'm assuming that's you!) the Panama Canal was huge. Even today, the United States trades basically through shipping. Where there is a good port, there is a major city. There are no cities where there is not major water access.
Anyway, there is a vast amount of info. You could have one very global article and then break it down to hemispheres, historical eras, geographic locations, historical importance, political importance -- in other words, any number of ways. More and more as I read, I see that human history is based on trade. I'm overwhelmed! Mattisse21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of input certainly is gratifying, and I'm beginning to see how an FA nom may make one a better editor. I may not be from as far away as you might think but admittedly I was ignorant about canals, Trans-Saharan trade, Inca road system etc. and only thought of caravans and stuff. I stumbled upon the article with little experience and little knowledge; section after section was added to it as a result of advice from you and other editors and now the article looks like a mainstream article should ! Havelockдатчанин02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse. Your input is valuable and I'm not asking you to change position. But I am a bit curious. I note your user boxes regarding your (impressive!) qualifications. As an admin of this project in RL I am also a director of two companies, one owned by myself and another owned by others. I have had an enormous amount of experience in the training (teaching) process in these capacities. I'd like to see some diffs on the "Admins are notoriously unskilled in teaching" bit if you have a moment. Ta! Pedro : Chat 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already spent two wasted days tracking down diffs for an RFC and responding to this and other useless endeavors. I spent 9 months collecting diffs for the sock puppets who were after me, the two RFC's filed against me and and Arbitration filed against me and several mediations. (The first mediatior turned out to be a sock puppet, the second mediation exercised his right to vanish two days after he took over the mediation, the first RFC and the Arbitration were filed totally by sock puppets. What more can I say? I am sick of the whole thing.
Look at my edit record if you want to know anything about me. Oh, you could look up Cyborg Ninja who stalked me recently, and managed to cause a lot of trouble for me on pages she had never even edited on at all, by running to admins, (like User:Mmarsh who made disparaging remarks about me on his/her user page based on what Cyborg Ninja said. Cyborg Ninja starting an RFC on me -- and once she was forced to remove the personal attacks about me being a mentally ill and unstable from her user page, she managed to get me blocked by starting trouble on another page she had nothing to do with, Caisson (Asian architecture), The mediator , Blueboar allowed PalaceGuard008 to attack me endlessly in a so-called Mediation. I will never enter a mediation again, ever. And this was after I had asked for help. Well, I got blocked by User:LessHeard vanU suddenly, many hours after with no warning for something in a middle of a long article (which I totally lost because I was given no warning and could not save). And I had asked over and over for help. And look up User:IvoShandor (who now has exercised his right to vanish, I guess) who drove me off DYK:Discussion with lots of support from others for giving him a compliment: See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 23. There is no protection for me except to stay out of things and not make comments anywhere. And write my own articles. I'm sticking to this. There are no helpful admins. Mattisse00:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man. That pains me. I only asked for a bit of info. If I can be of any help I'll be glad to try. I'm sorry you WP experience has been so crap. Honestly, it was just a question and I popped it here rather than at RfA to ensure no possible confrontation on the RfA itself. I'm really gutted, and please, let me prove that the admin team can help and are interested. You're a valuable thoughtful editor and we need more like you. Pedro : Chat 00:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why did User:LessHeard vanU block me? I blamed Blueboar because I did not know? That was a learning experience! LessHeard vanU will not tell me although I have asked. Is that enough of an example? Sorry, I don't feel like diffs. Just look on his user page. Doe you thing Panda 2 would be an improvement? Mattisse00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will always continue to have difficulties. There are no places for me to go to for help. Those places do not help people like me but only the technically sophisticated and internet-worldly people. There are no Admins that will help me, except ones like User:LessHeard vanU who originally seem to jump in and help me on a slight matter, but explain nothing of use, and end up punishing me. It is not worth asking for help, although I occasionally stoop to it out of despair occasionally. Anyway, a good proportion of them turn out to be sock puppets in the end. Thanks for you inquiry. I have given up. Mattisse13:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel very bad about this. I wasn't involved, so as for block reasons I just can't see what I can do to help. But I promise faithfully that I am not a sock, and that I have the interests of valued editors at my heart. Wikipedia is nothing without our editors. I'm really sorry you feel so disillusioned. I wish I could offer constructive assistance. Pedro : Chat 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vote
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).
As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.
I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.
Did you know? was updated. On 21 November, 2007, a fact from the article Burton Abbott, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for the encouragement, I'm one of those people who have the toughest time figuring the simplest things out when it comes to computers (I wonder how people take up these things as a profession!) and its been tough to not have even the simplest things, like surfing the internet, as a result of a corrupted system. Havelockдатчанин02:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks
Hi Mattisse. I see you feel that you have been blocked unfairly in the past. I recommend that if an admin blocks you and it isn't reverted and you don't get the resolution you desire, that you file an Rfc on such events. Perhaps the blocking admin made an error on your block...but I haven't looked at your block log, so I don't know what has happened. As far as the ones you mention I have recieved, I'll mention them here. The first one, more than 2 years ago, was legitimate...it was for a 3RR violation I had made. The second one, by Kelly Martin, was due to my posting a comment on another person's talkpage...Kelly felt I was out of line, others disagreed...I don't feel like looking up later discussions on it, but she later apologized for that block. The third one was reported by User:XP to the 3RR noticeboard who is now indefinitely blocked because he was evading his ban (he is aka User:Rootology)...we were both blocked, but neither of us had actually violated 3RR...so the fourth block was only one second because that is the only way anyone can make a comment to the block log showing an error...the only other way to make an adjustment to what the block log states is via oversight, in which the block is wiped out (I think). The fifth block was something that did not imapct me. I had made a rash comment, but it wasn't the way I meant to put it...many felt the block was a bad block and it was overturned...I was offline during that event and had nothing to do with the decsion making process in the least. The last block was both excessive and wrong. Krimpet had warned me, I removed her warning when I saw it...and she then blocked me, basically since I removed her warning. This will be discussed in my arbcom case in more detail. Nevertheless, the block was overturned after consensus on the noticeboard and I had no involvement with the affair as I was offline. My edits have been substantially reduced in recent months and I doubt I will be around no matter what the findings are on my arbcom case...Let me know (if I am still around) how I can help.--MONGO (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, I have asked you for help in the past, and you made it very clear that you wanted nothing to do with me. Now, apparently your attitude has changed.
When this RfC started, I was basically predisposed toward you anyway, wanting to be on your side nonetheless. But when I looked at your block record, having seen many of your past posts, I could not help but compare my puny little transgressions which were made either out of total ignorance or were the result of who know what behind-the-scenes decision-making (as nothing is transparent around here), or the result of six months of sock puppet ring harassment (than neither you or any of your admin friends paid any attention to -- in fact some of them were sock puppets themselves and allied with the sock puppets harassing me) and compared them with your persistent uncivil and arrogant behavior .... well, it is clear that I am on the wrong side of this fence and no amount to temporary help from you will make any difference. Thanks all the same. I was recently blocked by User talk:LessHeard vanU with no warning whatsoever so that I lost a long, footnoted article I had written. This, even though I was being stalked by another and User:Mmarsh took the trouble to badmouth me on his user page to my stalker.
I assure you, I wasn't trying to sway you from your opinion at all...I was just explaining my block log to you, as well as telling you how you might be able to do something about your situation. For what is is worth, a couple of my blocks had no preceding warnings either...though the most recent one did, in fact...however, it was less of a warning and more of a threat, in actuality. I have worked with hundreds of editors on this site, and we sometimes lose sight of each other as time goes by. Though rare..it is not impossible to have your block log oversighted...so you might want to try that route.--MONGO (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware you do not need my support. That I am a superfluous nobody on this website as been made abundantly clear. I don't know what you mean "having my block log "oversighted". I have gone to the end with trying to figure out what happened there and the answer is that they cannot tell me because my sins were found out "accidentally" and are not transparent. As for warnings, I would prefer a threat to no warning and losing all my work. Mattisse13:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. What ever it was, it happened last summer because I angered rdsmith (or whatever his name is). And it could not have happened that way it was presented as I do not use sock puppets. Further, there were gross inconsistencies, if you look at the various "sock" records, and nothing ending up detrimental to Wikipedia resulted, unlike what I see daily happening now with no reprise.
2. For whatever the reason I was so charged, the people charging it have since found to be sock puppets themselves and permanently banned. Others exercised the "right to vanish".
3. It (my alleged sock puppets) were used as a basis of numerousness AN/I reports against me through out the rest of 2006, and others suspected of being me, all through fall and winter of 2006. (Check users had been performed on some of the sock puppets working against me and their excuse that they were all driving in a car together on the way to Austin and used the same laptop and edited the same articles. This excuse prevented any discipline against them). They drove at least one user from Wikipedia by abuse and Admins refused to help that person. They started a RFC/Mattisse in the middle of an mediation process (the mediator was a sock as it turned out, and second mediator (under a recently changed name), was one of my harassers through Fall of 2006 and exercised the right to vanish two days after being appointed as next mediator, right after I asked him some questions about his treatment of me under his old name.
4 An arbitration was opened that dwelled on the issue of my sock puppets in December 2006
5 A RFC/Mattisse 2 was opened within the last month or so that focused on those same sock puppets of mine (charges now over a year ago) were the focus of this RFC.
6 NONE of the admins I appealed to for help responded, or helped only in only a cursory manner like User:LessHeard vanU that ended up harming me in the end as Admins take only a very superficial view. Everyone who helped be and in the end defended me were NONE admins.
7 The degree to which I am actually interested in writing good articles on Wikipedia is directly related to the amount of harassment I will receive, and the direct unwillingness of Admins to help me. The only way I can edit peacefully here is to do scut work and copy editing for an editor who is protected by ADMINS. Mattisse14:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What else can I say? It seems a consensus of editor believe I am incivil...whereby, I don't disagree with that, but have plenty of evidence to show that I am no more incivil, and in fact, am sometimes more civil than these same accusers are. I have no idea (as I had lost contant with you) what has happened since the sockpuppet checkuser issue...so what has happened in the intermedium is a mystery to me...if you have been villianized, then there is a possible resolution for you. I can't guarantee it will accepted or the outcome will be what you expect and that is because so much that happens around here is pot luck it seems. But, honestly, if you think I wanted to be desysopped, you are mistaken...my actions or mistakes as an admin were far less than those who have been able to retain their admin tools or were given a far less severe punishment than I got.--MONGO (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you did not want to be desysopped and my heart went out to you when it happened. Although you do not remember me, we did have conversations at one point and I felt I got a sense of you that I liked despite your awful qualities (joke) -- amend that to "hard to take" qualities. I have been villified and there is no possible resolution for me. I have been essentially blackballed by Admin despite my high quality mainspace contributions (more than you even) which show where priorities lie.
I have done far less than you, penny anti mistakes, yet been blocked at the drop of a hat and can get no Admin support. Even when I was chased by the sock puppet ring for six months - no help and in fact I believe some admins were behind it. Sorry to be seeming to take it out on you, but when I read some of your edit summaries, I think, my lord, if I had written anything close there would be even more RfC's on me then there have been. MONGO, I realize you are a human being. However, I have grown so timid that to me you are the 10 million pound gorilla. And you do have a cabal of awful people (that Guy person whose behavior I have seen in other places, although I do believe he supported me in a few crucial RFC's or whatever). The only people that stick by me are non Admins, the editors that I have worked with. I am totally vulnerable to the whims of this place and reconciled that I will be booted out. Mattisse20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the checkuser evidence that showed you had used multiple accounts to vote stack at deletions put a bad taste in some mouths...it is hard to get around that history. You probabnly should ahve abandoned this account and restarted afresh at that time...and maintained a clean record as you have done since. I think you need to also look at some of the folks I have been "incivil" to before you make any assumptions that I was at those moments dealing with Wikipedia's Finest. Though certainly not acceptable, as I do (believe it or not) trust that WP:CIVIL is an important policy that should be adhered to...I am mainly known for being easily baited and goaded, so I am a bit of a target anyway...I do best when I say nothing at all sometimes. Anyway, for what is worth, you are not the only female that has complained about this website being very hostile at times, and I have had to remind myself that not everybody is as broad-shouldered as I am and we all need to be kinder to each other.--MONGO (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one showed me the check user account. I know I innocently (not knowing the thug politics around here) submitted a school for AfD (thinking I was being helpful). That was when the nastiness started by rdsmith (or whatever his name is) who spammed other users to get me -- calling me a "deletionist" etc. and band wagoned personal attacks against me. Whatever the "so called" checkuser showed, it wasn't me. Why don't you inspect those account of my so-called sock puppet and see, collectively, if they make any sense. I have. Some of them had not even edited. Some of them edited at cross purposes. Some of them created articles that were liked and kept. None of them did anything that was truly harmful to Wikipedia. None of them caused 1/1000 the disruption, ill will and waste of good editor time that your acts have generated and none of them were advocating any kind of detectable personal adjenda, unlike you. Why don't you desert your account and start with a clean slate? It would amount to the same thing. Out of prinicple, because I did nothing wrong, I will not succumb to the thug politics around here. I have never knowingly engaged in a personal attack, if any of the so-called "sock puppet" vote stacked (which I don't think they did} it had no effect on the outcome. You are disingenuous if you compare my puny allegations with your behavior. No one at the time suggested I abandon my account, and many question the authenticity of the "sock puppets" based on the fact there was not a common addenda. Mattisse13:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that a checkuser was run and all those socks came back as coming from your IP address. I had nothing to do with it. If it was in error, then you can ask those who ran the checkuser tools to make adjustments. However, since that was a long time ago, the current checks would no longer be valid. But this comment is really not helpful in the least and you know that. So before you lecture me on civility, I suggest you adjust it.--MONGO (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. How would you suggest? I have noticed his behavior for a long time and I made an honest comment. If there is another way I can express myself (since for so long I have be intimindated to do so), then please suggest an alternative that would be more pleasing. I truly feel (in my experience) he has contributed to the ugliness of Wikipedia that severely interrupts the enjoyment of those of us who wish merely to edit. Failing that, you can block me (rather, get one of you "group" to do it. I apologize for lacking the finesse in wording required. As far as the check user, I feel I was set up, as I know now that at least one admin involved in the general situation (not the blocking admin) was a sockpuppet. Mattisse15:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Others suspected something was up also. For example, some of the sock puppet wording was uniquely not wording that I or my "sock puppets" would have been familiar with. Mattisse15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only take that suggestion in jest. When has an RfC ever accomplished anything? Besides, the reservations by others were expressed, the fact that the socks did not by and large edit the same articles , the implausibility of the language and other behavior, the lack of damage that the sock puppets did in any event, have been brought up in various Mattisse sock puppet discussions by other editors and ignored. Apparently it is O.K. if you have sock puppets if vote stacking and such is not engaged in. Besides all these discussion were dominated by a sock puppet ring that was not caught until over six months later. In addition, one of the admins involve exercised his right to vanish a few days after he was appointed to look into the situation via mediation on the issue. (The mediatior before him was a sock puppet also, as it turns out.) So, no. I have no faith in your suggestions. Mattisse16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there was no check user, as I understand it, but the information was discovered by "accident" while Admin was investigating another case, I was told. Mattisse16:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Need your opinion
Hey sir. I know you've made some edits over at Psychiatry and needed your opinion with something. An editor has expressed interest in reintroducing a controversy section into the article. I would really appreciate it if you could let me know your thoughts as to whether it should or shouldn't be included as the article is written now. Let me know at Talk:Psychiatry#Should we reintroduce "Controversy" section?. Thanks so much for your time. Chupper (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me. (Oh, and if you hate RfA Thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you for deleting it ;-))
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫ This RfA thanks inspired by Neranei's, which was inspired by VanTucky's which was in turn inspired by LaraLove's which was inspired by The Random Editor's, which was inspired by Phaedriel's original thanks.
DYK
On 26 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emma Cunningham, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 27 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert Tirrell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you my friend. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks fo your words of encouragement. I recently visited Bangladesh, took pictures and collected books. I enjoyed the trip. Please have a look at Haor. Regards. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Natalia Polosmak, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Can't find your "talk page", and you may see my comment in the discussion of the merge proposal, but... I became captivated by the Maasia after a trip to Tanzania last year. I'm continuing to work on the Maasai article, which will make the culture page redundant and a candidate for deletion. I'll get back to you when I get to that point. Steve Pastor20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for having copyedited the sections I added some month ago to Ket people. I am not good in English, and I all my sources were in Hungarian language. Maybe I shall avail some Russian sources about Kets in the future. I discovered also a possible mistranslation of mine, I have just corrected it. I wish much success to Your work. Physis (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 5 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trusty system, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank You very much Your reassuring words about Ket people article. I hope I shall know more about them, I have now only fragments about them, collected from books discussing more general topics (shamanism, Uralic people etc.).
I study now the culture and language of Sireniki Eskimos and Siberian Yupik. I am interested in: do any pre-agriculture cultures show any patterns that can be compared with those of natural science? (Acknowledging importance of years-long learning; regarding word as result of interaction of rather mechanistic forces; blurring border between active, subject-like roles and passive, object-like roles in beliefs about realm of living beings etc.)
Re Is it possible to post here? The sign on the page looks like maybe I am violating a rule by posting here.
Hi FayssaIff. Please look at the question I asked you on your ArbCom nomination page. I was very hurt and troubled by you cavalier treatment of me, almost as a joke, on the AN/I page. I believe I have contributed enormously to wikipedia and do not deserved to be dismissed as a joke. I am an all too easy target because I am vulnerable. It is greatly disturbing to think that a person with your attitude toward someone like me would be on the ARBCom. You do seem not look into things before you rush to hurtful judgments. It is immensely discouraging to good editors as I am. Please look at my edit numbers, my FA article copyedits, the numbers of articles I have written and/or significantly contributed to. My DYK's are to numerous to count, although I have lost heart now to do serious work on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Mattisse17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just answered you Mattisse. I am really sorry that you feel hurt but you have to understand that it is very hard for me or anyone else to know about other people emotions online. I totally agree that you are a very great contributor but believe me, as an admin, i can't deal w/ content. I tried to guide you both to an alternative way to sort out your dispute. That is my aim. I support your contribs of course but edit warring and some harsh comments should be reviewed. I used to get emotional here sometimes but i found out that it doesn't work. We got millions of contributors and i am sure that many among them are great contributors like yourselves. Some others are hard to work with but how can we find alternative ways? The question remains... It is about your emotional way. Take it easy. Get other people involved as third party editors especially that you use to edit very specific articles which only few people know about. Forget about emotions. Edit warring is bad and it is surely the cause of the problem. I hope you don't take it as something personal and consider that i am full aware of the situation and hope you happy editing.
P.S. "Restricted to People w/ Civil Tantrum only" is more a joke than anything. Even if it would be something serious i, of course, don't consider you part of that :) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never posted or even knew about AN/I for the first six months I was here. Yes, I am an old lady that does not catch on quickly but that is no reason to ridicule me. My contributions have been excellent until now. I now refuse most work asked and no longer copy edit for people -- I only did that so I would be protected from the sock puppets. I copy edited the India FA and it was for that reason I was protected much of the time. You do a lot of damage by your cavalier attitude. Maybe Jimbo does not value the contributions of us older members -- I believe that is clearly the message. I voted against you for this reason. I no longer care if I am blocked. I have freaked out and put a month's worth of my articles up for deletion (and other shoot-self-in-foot tactics) but I have never edit warred knowingly, I have never been uncivil. I have never vandalized but only put my very best into wikipedia. Unfortunately all the good editors I knew have gone. It's you wikipedia. Go at it. Mattisse18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse. I again feel sorry about the way you feel. But can you understand my position? Yes, you have been uncivil toward Blueboar. The thing is again about emotions since i know about your invaluable contributions. Now that i understand your feeling, can you please have a look at my stance toward incivility? Make sure you read my answer to Heimstern #2 and to avoid thinking it is directed to you. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::I might have been with BlueBoar. I had misgivings in accepting him as a mediator because of past experience. I actually saved him from a sockpuppet. However, he let an incredibly agressive person run all over me in a mediation -- a person who had taken material out of an article I wrote, redirected the article to his and then cut/paste the material I wrote into his. That person never contributed any material to the mediation. All he did was attack me constantly and at length and they were personal attacks. Blueboar said not a word to him until the very end when I blew up. Then he made a mild comment to the other party. I came up with outlines, list of materials, a schedule of how to procede - in other word I did all the work. Until I could not take both doing the work and the constant abuse anymore. There is no one for a person like me to turn to -- no one helps or protects me. Only one person is left from the excellent group of editors I used to work with on wikipedia and he will only communicate on IRC now. Why do you hang on Blueboar and don't look at the months of abuse I took with no help. I get your drift and will not bother you any more. You are for the BlueBoars and Zerapera (or whatever her name is) of the world. This is why I, like many others, no longer give of myself to wikipedia. Wikipedia does not value me and has made that very clear. Mattisse19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Do you think I would have put up with that situation with Blueboar if I had any other choice? I did ask on AN/I if an article could be eviscerated and #REDIRECT with no consultation with article editors. Answer:no. The redirecting editor must discuss. But there was no way for me to enforce that, no one would help me, so I had to go along with Blueboar's directions of accepting the #REDIRECT and then fixing up the other editor's article to be as good as the one he had #REDIRECT and merged into his. How would you feel in a situation like that? I am helpless here at wikipedia and I cannot take it any longer. Mattisse19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, please take heart and don't be discouraged. I am really swamped today, fell behind yesterday on Wiki editing I must tend to, and have appt's all afternoon today, but I promise to catch up later in the day. I understand your frustration, as it mirrors much of my Wiki experience as well. Something must change if productive editors are to stay on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, I have replied on the ArbCom vote talk page. This is becoming a time sink, so I'll just say here that I am terribly sorry to see you fall victim to Zeraeph, and to see what happened to you, and I fully understand your concerns about these trends on Wikipedia. I also have to make sure to clarify one remark you made on my talk page; I am not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
psychos
I'm still working on it. I'm not particularly invested in it, but to me the word 'psychopathy' is also very outmoded, stigmatizing even more than is necessary, and politically incorrect. I can't be the only one to think these people using the word 'psychopath' in a clinical context is not quite right. If we can find a source that says so (shouldn't be too hard) that'd be great. Merkinsmum22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What a new signature you have!
Psychopath is never used in a clinical context in the U.S.
I just wrote my opinion under the Antisocial Personality Disorder article talk page. I was originally "brought up" using psychopathy as a general descriptive term. But even in my 1968 DSM-II, the word psychopathy was not used diagnostically. Psychopathy was nice because it was a general descriptive term that did not have firm requirements. You could say any manipulative person was psychopathic, and it was a given that politicians in general were psychopaths, or successful businessmen etc., even psychology professors.
The AMA really reduced it to a criminal category ("repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest") and took away the fun of calling the President of the U.S. (whoever at the time) a psychopath. It also made it clear that it was not a childhood diagnosis (must be at least age 18) but with evidence of a Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15.
I am not clear how ICD-10 fits in but I can tell from what I read on line that it has a different slant.
Although I used to have Hare's book (can't find it now) I do not remember that Hare focused so on Sex Offenders the way the Psychopathy article does. And someone has to realize that researchers can use whatever terms they want, they can make them up even, whereas the clinical situation is very different. And also the problems with cluster/factor analysis. I was on IRC yesterday with a wikipedia mathematics person, and he was reading the Psychopathy article and having big problems with it.
Thanks! It is used frequently in research because of Hare, a research psychologist - he must be in his 80's by now! He is the one using cluster/factor analyses on sample of 16 subjects. There is quite a bit of research going on in that vein. But he is off on a completely different angle and his findings are irrelevant to clinical psychology. Don't you have that 16-PF over where you are? He wants to come up with something like that. Thanks for the conversation yesterday! Mattisse22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I like to think I've NPOV'ed the article a bit more just now, so do take a look. Yes we can call people a 'psycho' etc in everyday life if we think they're a bit wrong, but that's not really the same as institutionalised use of the term. Use of the term feels a bit like if the psychiatric establishment still believed in drapetomania lol, although APD and psychopathy are not so different, indeed many believe are synonymous. The charming/manipulative/lying elements don't seem to be in the APD article much at the mo, with which I was surprised. Hare and his followers can't have been the only ones to talk about the possible advantages in business etc of being a psycho, too. Tomorrow I'll look at the dissocial link (tonight I've had a glass or two of wine lol). Yes the bits I've read about APD before (being from the UK, I think were different. But maybe I'm just getting it mixed up with NPD a bit at that point.Merkinsmum23:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Glad you like the sig lol- I was inspired a bit by yours because you have colour and bold- plus I saw some code on another site for the rainbowness so I could copy it. At first it was flashing and larger, but I got told off:) Spoilsports lol.:) Merkinsmum23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the piped dissocial to APD links but any differences need to be mentioned in the APD article, or a new article made about the 'dissocial' condition. It's not one of your friend Z's articles, so feel free to go ahead.:)Merkinsmum00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's the unethical fraud that I object to most. I'm not going to try to fix the article or any other in Psychology. As Sandy said, it is hopeless. There is a reason why no psychology article has never been FA. I can't even image GA status. It is so hopeless. Thanks for doing that. That was so outright against even wikipedia's few standards. Mattisse00:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
psyco merge
I wanted to merge sections of it, such as get the history bit and other bits because it's a more fleshed out article. See the sections I've highlighted for merging on Hare's theory of psychopathy. I have to mention it, at least in the edit if it's done, so the history is intact for it to comply with the GFDL. What do you think? That article is in less of a note form than the APD one. I mean the criteria bit needs to be a list but the rest of APD could look more like an article. Merkinsmum01:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding what you mean "comply with the GFDL". What does that entail? (I am working on the Antisocial Personality Disorder using DSM-IV. I discovered the other DSM diagnosis articles do not have that ICD-10 or 9 on them, so I don't have to mix apples and oranges.) Mattisse01:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is before I can lift sections of the psychopathy article such as the history section, I have to note a merge in the edit history, or I am not entirely compliant with wiki's copyright license, the Gnu Free Documentation License. How I understand it is that when performing a merge, the articles should oth be mentioned in the histories so there's a record of who added the various bits. But I could be wrong- your guess is as good as mine lol when it comes to technical stuff.:) And it doesn't really matter lol:)
The APD article is much more straightforward now you did that, though I'm intrigued now and will have to look at the ICD-10 tomorrow. Also it means that it doesn't look as much of a majority of people having the same view of APD or whatever we care to call it.:)Merkinsmum 02:14, 13
December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you want to do a merge, you can. But from my point of view the info could be left where it is. It is just general information. I have all the books and references and could write a section like that for the Antisocial Personality Disorder article, although I don't think it is needed there. Sleep well! Mattisse02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd like to say I'm not into the edit wars and zealous guardianship of articles (mainly, I just don't have the time); however, I am 'well versed on some subjects (like psychopathy) and contribute when I can. There is considerable confusion about the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder. Unfortunately, not even the recognized experts are in consensus (please see Reification). Luckily, we have a few clear facts that make the dispute more manageable for us Wikipedia editors:
Psychopathy is assessed in adult forensic and clinical populations using the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R). Related psychological instruments exist to measure psychopathy in children and business associates and to measure subclinical psychopathic personality traits through self-report.
An extensive set of research on psychopathy exists independent of work on antisocial personality disorder.
The DSM-IV task force cooperated with the authors of the ICD-10 to create a good degree of compatibility between their respective diagnostic systems although there are some notable differences.
The difficult question is in how different are these related concepts from each other? Given the separate body of research on psychopathy, it is clear at least two articles are needed. Given the relative sparsity of research on ICD-10 dissocial personality disorder, my opinion is that it is best to leave that as a section of the Antisocial personality disorder article. I think of dissocial PD as just another set of criteria for essentially the same concept as APD (just as would be the DSM-III-R or DSM-III criteria for APD, which differ quite a bit more from DSM-IV APD than ICD-10 dissocial PD does).
If you ask how does sociopathy differ from psychopathy, the answer varies greatly by expert; fortunately, no current diagnostic or measurement system uses the term. If one goes back to the DSM-I, ones finds sociopathic personality was an umbrella term that encompassed an antisocial type (perceived as in-born and defined by such characteristics as selfishness, immaturity, callousness, and impulsivity) and a dyssocial type (the result of socialization into a gang or neglectful parenting); alcoholism, substance addictions, and impulse-control disorders (kleptomania and pyromania) were also classified under sociopathic personality in this edition.
Hare distinguishes the terms psychopathy and sociopathy in the same way this early edition of the DSM distinguished antisocial and dyssocial types of sociopathic personality (however, other quotes suggest Hare sees the two as more or less the same). Lykken takes this distinction and refines it, suggesting various subtypes of both psychopathy and sociopathy. He was a proponent (but not the originator) of the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy. He suggested secondary psychopathy may be the result of something like a choleric (irritable, impulsive) temperament or hypersexuality whereas primary psychopathy results from an innate deficit in fearfulness. Joseph Newman has tested this hypothesis of Lykken's and even come up with his own explanation of primary psychopathy (a sort of attentional deficit).
The reason many experts presently emphasize a distinction between APD and psychopathy is that they find the APD criteria inadequate for clinical, forensic, and research purposes. Psychopathy, for example, has a stronger correlation with criminal recidivism (particularly violent recidivism). APD's looser criteria muddle different motivations and etymologies. Researchers have found that certain physiological responses are correlated only with the deficient emotional experience factor of the PCL–R (and similar factors of related instruments). Prosecuting attorneys especially love the term because this diagnosis dehumanizes the defendant in the eyes of the jury (even if they are instructed to treat the information rationally rather than emotionally, let's be honest). For this reason alone, I'm sure many researchers and clinicians would happily go to the less emotional term antisocial personality disorder if the criteria were sufficient for their needs.
I could go on...
Anyway now for a more personal note: Please remember to assume good faith from your fellow editors and avoid making rash accusations by calling someone's actions "unethical," "disguised," "mislead," etc. Zeraeph did not add the dissocial personality disorder information to the APD article; I did. A calm, clear-headed frame of mind is always helpful when editing Wikipedia. Truth and facts are really not a matter of consensus, but our approach to editing Wikipedia, by and large, is since otherwise everyone could claim to know the truth on their pet interest better than anyone else and resort to browbeating their perspective into everyone else's face.
I agree with most of what you say, as I have written in the talk sections of the articles. I suggested perhaps three articles and clearly define the terms. Please read what I wrote, as you are repeating much of what I said. I am not editing the Psychopathy article. However, I think it is in very bad shape. I am trying to clean up the Antisocial Personality Disorder article. As someone said, recently, there is a very good reason why hardly any Psychology articles can even reach GA status. I have resisted editing this articles as this is my profession. I mainly write forensic articles, as I am a forensic psychologist. But this confusion over terms and the mess these articles are in is a travesty. I would like to work with you to fix them up. It is an embarrassment the way they are now. The other person, the one fixated on sex offenders being Antisocial Personality Disorders, has been blocked for 28 days. But the article is such a mess, it ruins the concept for me -- and psychopathy was my Life Work! I hope you will help. Regards, Mattisse02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I know the blocked person meant well, but she was blocked because she WP:OWN the article. Because she has a history of such behavior, I am told, she was blocked for 28 days. She received a community ban but appealed personally to Jimbo and it was reversed. But she is on thin ice. If you are her friend, I would advise you to help her become more understanding. She is near receiving another community ban, I am told by the banning admin, who is trying to work with her. So please help her if you can to be more open to critical information and more responsible about referencing. If you are her friend you will help her. Mattisse02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally encountered the excesses of Zeraeph's zeal, but I would not suggest she is 100% misguided (as stubborn as she may be sometimes), and I do disagree with some of her edit choices but do not have the time available to make editing a daily thing or to play cyber-politics (I've had more than my fill of games from my ex). By the way, the professional body that publishes the DSM is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and not the American Medical Association (AMA), Doctor. ;) --NeantHumain (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not "that kind of person." Sometimes, though, people claim a prestigious occupation or degree when the available evidence puts it in doubt. On Wikipedia, ideally, that kind of stuff wouldn't matter anyway, but then again who would be tempted to play up their credentials if it didn't?--NeantHumain (talk) 03:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A person who takes the time to point out a typo rather than fixing it is a certain kind of person that has nothing to do with credentials -- or maybe it does if a person does not have them and is sensitive about it. Perhaps you might lay off for a while and give me a breather, since you are not inclined to be constructive. Mattisse03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TRAPS article
Hello Matisse, A few months ago you deleted a large section describing the clinical features of TRAPS. You reason being that it appeared to be a copy paste and possibly copyrighted. The writing was in fact mine and not copyrighted and i think it add to to the article, so suggest that that section be reinserted. The information is from many sources, I could possibly work on inserting some references. I am not a frequent contributer to Wikipedia, as you appear to be, but i wonder why you choose to delete such a large section instead of contacting an author?
Thanks, Lobitoa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobitoa (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I removed it because did not have reference citations so the source of the material was not clear. Original material is not allowed (i.e. material you wrote yourself) in wikipedia articles. If you wrote the material without attributing it to the sources (third-party unbiased, reliable soures) where you obtained the information, then it cannot be reinserted. See the articles Parapsychology,Transhumanism to see how material should be footnoted. Also, see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FN, and WP:CITE, among others for wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, WP:OR states that you cannot insert original material. Regards, Mattisse15:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG! If that's really true then that may explain why he ended up on the 'psychopathy' page, may have been looking at my contribs, as I undid an edit of IPSOS's just before he was blocked, the edit I undid was on Jaq D. Hawkins].Merkinsmum22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's really a messed up nest. User:Blnguyen was the one who tracked down the original bunch. Ekajaki had claimed at one point she was a bar maid in Dublin, and at another point she and two other socks claimed they were driving to Austin, TX in the same car, sharing a laptop and editing the same articles. Blnguyen said, "Oh, on your way to your bar maid job?" All this came out of the Starwood Arbitration. Blnguyen is very smart. I'm glad he is keeping his eye on this as apparently it is starting up again. Mattisse22:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links
I would be more comfortable if you just removed the external links you felt were inappropriate and left a message on the related talk pages explaining your actions. I've asked Rosencomet not to revert or add any links back in. The AfD page probably isn't the best place for this discussion. —Viriditas | Talk02:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for adminship
Hmm? I'll keep it short. I've seen you round alot recently, and I've come to admire your straight-talking, very helpful edits around en.wiki. Would you be willing to accept a nomination from a user who you've probably never contacted before? I'd love to, and I'd be really grateful for the opportunity. You'll most probably not accept this, but I'd like to think it represents anonymous confidence. :) Regards, Rt.19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly appreciative of your kind words and thank you for taking the time to contact me. Perhaps you do not know that I am a controversial person here on wikipedia. In fact, I believe it is only because of User:Salix alba's kindness to me that I am even able to continue here. He is currently running for admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salix alba and it is part of his kindness that he mentions me and my various situations in a positive sense in his statement, which is a new feeling for me and it feels good! Perhaps between you and him I will one day have the confidence to do what you are suggesting. Sincerely, Mattisse22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rosencomet knows the rules. If he breaks them, report him. There's no need to confront him directly and I suggest you try to ignore him. —Viriditas | Talk12:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just so you understand, I can fully see your side, even if I'm not taking a position on who is right or wrong. I know what it is like when someone is personally attacking me or making false comments about my character or my ideas. —Viriditas | Talk12:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict):I have ignored his attacks for over a year. I am extremely tired of his repeated accusations of sock puppetry and other attacks on me. My life has been made hell on wikipedia because of this. I was dragged into an arbitration I had nothing to do with because of him. It has been made clear to him numerous times that his statements are not true. I am very unhappy and am no longer willing to routinely under go these attacks and to be intimidated in to not editing any of his growing list of articles. As I wrote you on your talk page, these continuing attacks on me of sock puppets is one of the disturbing issues User:Salix alba mentions in his Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Salix alba. Because I am a psychologist does not mean I am not a human being. He and the sock puppets supporting him have negatively affected my whole experience on wikipedia and now I am going to do what I can to stop it before I am driven off wikipedia. You are one of many well-meaning persons who have tried to help Rosencomet. However, the result is that it enables him to continue his attacks on me. Regards, Mattisse12:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen to me very carefully. Nobody can make you feel any way. Nobody can make you do something you don't want to do. You are in control of you own life. Rosencomet, for all his faults, is not responsible for how you feel. —Viriditas | Talk12:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there policies on personal attacks on wikipedia then? Your statement above is true for everyone. Do not single me out. As I have said, User:Salix alba particularly singled out these personal attacks on me as an ugly problem on wikipedia. I have been dragged into numerous check users, several mediations, an RFC on me and the Starwood Arbitration. These have taken up months of my time. It is unreasonable of you to single me out as a person who does not deserve protection from personal attacks. Remember, there were about six months when I was utterly alone and being victimized daily by the several sock puppets supporting Rosencomet with no help from admin. You have no idea what a hell this has been. On one day alone, I was stalked to 37 articles and my edits changed. On one day alone, six AN/I's were filed against me. As Salix alba says, it is disturbing that editors have been driven off wikipedia because of attacks from the Starwood supporters and admin turned a blind eye. Mattisse13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you want me to pull up my shirt and show you my battle scars, eh? No thanks, I don't want to bore you. I've asked Rosencomet to ignore you and I hope you'll do the same to him. Now, why don't you get down to brass tacks and tell me who is behind these sock puppets? And please do not continue to contact Rosencomet on his talk page. This is the last time I asking you to ignore him. Stop. I assumed you were intelligent enough to understand that if Rosencomet contacts you after you have ignored him, you will have a basis for having him blocked. Don't you get it? —Viriditas | Talk13:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::::I have no idea who is behind the sock puppets. All I know is that they persecuted me until they were shut down in January/February of 2007 and several have sprung up since. I am not sophisticated about that sort of thing. Ask User:Blnguyen or someone else who knows. Mattisse13:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)::No I don't get it. I have ignored him all along. The only postings I have made on his pages previously have been conciliatory ones. I have never warned him before. Today is the first time. He has been warned previously by admin not to post personal attacks on my page. Why is he justified in putting them on article talk pages? I do not understand what you are saying. It is not a question of him "contacting" me. It is a question of him and the sock puppets smearing my name around on talk pages with so many accusations that now other editors assume the worst of me, which is one of the reasons I still have trouble getting help from admin. Mattisse13:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) : Numerous checkusers were filed. The answer from the sock puppets were that checkusers were "pixie dust". How can I get more sophisticated? What should I do, as I have no clue. It is only through the kindness of a few people (all but one driven off by Starwood Arbitration) that I have managed to survive here. Mattisse13:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not your fault. There are several limitations with the checkuser system. Anyhoo, do me a favor and put all of your energy into working on some more articles and let this go for 24 hours. My offer to remove any attacks still stands. —Viriditas | Talk13:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you bothered to look at my edit history? Please do so with Kate's tool before you advise me on how I should edit articles. Mattisse13:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English is my native language. If you want to be a rescuer you can start by remove this: ": After being dragged through hell by you and your many sock-puppets,..." directed at me from just above your comment on the Starwood talk page. This whole conversation with you is ugly. I am not going to spend my time now hunting down all the personal attacks on me by Rosencomet. Why should I have to relive this awfulness again? I merely want to be able to edit the articles I want without personal attacks from Rosencomet. I would prefer not to continue this conversation with you. I will seek help elsewhere. Mattisse14:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for offending you, and no, I don't take offense at your insulting comments about me, but thank you for expressing your concern for my welfare. Clearly this dispute is all about you, and I wouldn't want to get in the way of your crusade. Good luck. —Viriditas | Talk14:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I do not take offense at your insulting comments about me. However I am tired of this conversation as you are one of many who has stepped in to try to help Rosencomet. I do not care to go through the experience again. Mattisse14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sincere posting called "trolling and foolishness"
This is the posting that was called "trolling and foolishness: [7] This wikipedia world is very hard to understand. And it is difficult to get real information about how to proceed. Mattisse14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from User:Viriditas page [8] to help me with my morale and understanding):
Hi, Viriditas. I appreciate your efforts to informally mediate between these two. It's a contentious situation with a lot of history. However, having looked over your comments on Mattisse's page, I am a bit concerned. I think you need to look over the Starwood-related RfCs, Mediations, and Arbitration. A number of people (myself included) have posted the links in exchanges with you, so you should have them at hand. I think Mattisse is getting frustrated because you are asking her to explain things that have already been gone over extensively and repeatedly, and I don't think she should have to repeat herself again because you haven't read up on the history. Again, I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think asking people to restate the history for you will make people feel cooperative. I would also suggest that you don't tell one party in the discussion that you think they're being harrassed, and then expect the other editor to treat you as a neutral party. I thank you for trying to help with this, but I'd appreciate you taking these points into consideration. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this edit summary is very troubling: [9] It no longer looks like you are attempting mediation, rather it appears you are advocating for Rosencomet and making personal attacks on Mattisse, calling her a "troll" and a "fool". This is unacceptable. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mask-of-sanity-book-cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mask-of-sanity-book-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
<font=3> Wishing you a "Feliz Navidad and a Happy new Year" Tony the Marine (talk)
Important note
Dear Mattisse,
Death and Adjustment Hypotheses is now available as a wiki article with the same name. Pls help me wikify it with any other corrections that might hamper it as a wiki article. Its very important for me.Shoovrow (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to add an article on "Iyengar Bakery", which has been popularised throughout South India by Iyengar's of the Ashtgrama villages of Hassan district. Can you kindly inform the names of the eight villages of Ashtagrama? Can I add the name of Iyengar Bakery under Hassan page and then create a new article by that name?
Inserted by User: Nvvchar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvvchar (talk • contribs) 07:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can create a link Iyengar Bakery on the page. Then write an article for the link if you can verify sources of information in your new article. As far as the eight villages, I do not know their names. Perhaps when you are looking up information on Iyengar Bakery, you can find out the names. Happy editing! Regards, Mattisse14:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page you have dabbed as link is fine. But I am trying to find out the names of the ashtagrama villages. As soon as I find the names, I will upload the article which is almost ready.Thanks. Inserted by User; Nvvchar
I uploaded the aricl on Iyengar Bakery linking it with this page as directed above on 24 Decemebr 2007. But it has not appeared under wiki today.Has it been deleted. Search engine does not provide any information. Starting with the Iyengar Bakery page I added an article on Irani Cafe which has appeared in wiki today. Please let me know what is the status of the artcile Iyengar Bakery. Should I upload it again? Thanks. User:Nvvchar--Nvvchar (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)25 December 2007[reply]
According to the message on Iyengar Bakery page, the article was deleted because it was considered "blatant advertising". Are you familiar with the policies of wikipedia, especially the verifiability rules, the no original research rule and the need for a neutral point of view? You have to give reliable, unbiased third-party references for your article: like Articulation. (Notice the footnote references.) I can't thing of a restaurant article for an example -- here is one: Subway (restaurant). Regards, Mattisse16:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the "Silk Road" Encyclopedia Britannica article at hand, and the subject is on my list. I wonder if it would be possible to use the wonderful image that they have under some license. It beats the one I found here though the owners have promised a better one soon. I recall reading about the recent coining of the term as well. Warm regards, Hαvεlokбеседамансарда00:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mattisse,
I am waiting very eagerly for someone who is much better than I am in optimizing an article for wiki and that someone is definitely you. Could you pls start seeing "Death and Adjustment Hypotheses" article? I do not feel secured at wiki while submittting any article! Its like an unknown fear. Presence of a friend by my side will be very assuring. E-mail me after you start working on it.
Shoovrow (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you that I will be referring to the editing of the Psychopathy article by both Zeraeph and yourself on the 28th December, requests for assistance that followed by both parties, actions taken and the subsequent escalation of the situation - should the case be accepted. If you do not wish to participate as a party, I will gladly inform you when I have made any submission that references you - so you may be able to respond if desired. I would also advise you that it may be prudent to keep an eye on the case should it go forward, since being an involved party may (but not necessarily) mean that any resolution or decision may involve and effect you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the way you have operated toward me in the past. I have no faith that anything worthwhile will come out of me being involved in any dialog with you. After all, you are the one the left me hanging out to dry with User:Blueboar. That you refused to help me and then blamed me for the result is undoubtedly the way you will proceed now. I have no confidence in your judgment or anything you say. Sorry, I don't want to play those games with you and your friends. Regards, Mattisse00:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to do the whole thing again. You can say at the ArbCom (in the Evidence section once it is accepted) that you have attempted to resolve the dispute between you and Zeraeph, and link to the comments you made at the article talk page. The arbs can then follow the links. Remember, they are not going to decide who has proven that their version is most correct - they are looking to see that all efforts were made to resolve the dispute by all, some or any of the concerned parties. From what I see the dispute at psychopathy is not the major part, there seems to be some history between Z and SandyGeorgia that is dominating the proceedings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that I am involved at all. I do not know any of the parties involved. My only misfortune was contacting you regarding Z. That hardly qualifies as an arbitration issue. I do not want to become a member of the caste of continuing characters of Z's ongoing drama. Mattisse18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I will make clear in my evidence - should the case be accepted - that the current situation was created as a result of Z editing the psychopathy article, the attempts by me and SlimVirgin to resolve the matter, which lead to input by various parties decrying Z's unblock in the first instance, and thereon. The edits to psychopathy is not the prime consideration - and may be no consideration at all. As I said, if and when I produce my evidence I will let you know in case there is anything that you disagree with or wish to add. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On 1 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article arch-gravity dam, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
My dear Friend,
Do you feel satisfied with the article 'Death and adjustment hypotheses' now? Also let me know after you have my book in hand, cos my target is to reach it to at least 10 person who cares for this science and also take it seriously. If you are one of them, I will search 9 more. Can you find another science worker-scholar like you who would be interested to collect my book to read it?
Shoovrow (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about not answering sooner. I'm involved in an ugly Wikipedia arbitration. I am no sure what you mean about the book. Is it the article? I tried to work on it, but much of it I don't understand, I'm afraid. I have gotten mixed up. Sincerely, Mattisse21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation
Mattisse,
Yesterday I talked about two things
First thing I meant was the current status of the article "Death and adjustment Hypotheses". Is it ok for wiki now, at least minimally?
Second thing that I meant yesterday is elaborated in an e-mail today. Read it and you will understand what I said about my book.
Shoovrow (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your post
Mattisse, I am not following this at all. I'm not aware of what you are referring to wrt LHvU. There may be a misunderstanding here. Please feel free to e-mail me, and please don't be distraught. There are already too many editors upset. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, I saw your post on Thatcher's page. I'm so so sorry yet another editor has been affected by this. I am so so sorry that Wiki has let this go so far. Please be well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Water well, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water well and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby award this medal to Mattisse for more than 50 contributions to Did You Know? I know DYK has sometimes been stressful for you, but I'm happy you've stuck with the project. Your many excellent articles are greatly appreciated! --JayHenry (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Slim harpo album.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Slim harpo album.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! I have been wrapped up in Christmas holidays here. Also there is an Arbitration on wiki that involves me so I have not been feeling very good (because of the Arbitration). One of my problems with the article that I do not understand it beyond a certain point. I will order the book from Amazon as soon as I can. And I will look at the article again today. Sincerely, Mattisse18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But please do not take anything as a load on your shoulder. Let me know if the book is better than the article for you.Shoovrow (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattisse, I would like to invite you to look at my latest article. I'm not going for FA, GA or nothing. I would like your opinion on the article before posting it in the mainspace. Workshop. Thank you, Tony the Marine (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly notable enough to be written about and explained. But looking at the Hallucination article, it seems like their way of handling various types of hallucinations is to describe them under a heading in the parent article. I looked under See also. Those articles to be larger topics. However, maybe there are all sorts of facts that you might dig up to justify an independent article. If you want to write the article, write it. (Maybe it will grow.) Link it under See also. It seem to me the worse that could happen is a merge. Mattisse14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding (and nominating) 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work - only a few to fifty. Well done again, Mattisse! --Victuallers (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused at your diffs. You wrote "Here are diffs showing contact between SlimVirgin and Zeraeph before the block", but the diffs you provided were from December 29th, after SV had unblocked her. Am I missing something? Jeffpw (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I was not thinking, I guess. You are undoubtedly right. I wasn't paying all that much attention at the time this was happening so I don't have the time line nailed down. Should I remove that post? Or do you want to make a statement under it? Or should I? Sorry, Mattisse16:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. No problem. Being human gives you the right to make an occasional error. :-P If I were you, I would just remove it, and give your reason in the edit summary. I guarantee you Wikipedia will keep on humming in spite of the occasional misbegotten post. Jeffpw (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology
Hi. I want to apologize for our interaction in December. I can see now that I was impatient with you and spent too much time talking rather than listening to what you had to say. I've been going over your past discussions with other editors, and even though we are a product of different generations separated by time, I hope we can bridge that gap and learn from each other in the new year. —Viriditas | Talk03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. I appreciate that you took time to look into my history. Currently I am embroiled in another issue that is another outcome of the Scarlet Letter I talked to you about before. So again I thank you. Regards, Mattisse21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to help you get the sock puppet category removed. From what I understand, it is possible to request it. Would you be interested in helping me do that? —Viriditas | Talk08:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you! If that is possible, it would be wonderful and save me infinite future grief. I would be very grateful to you if that could be accomplished. Mattisse13:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I will need is all the relevant documentation. Please send me the links by e-mail (click e-mail this user) or if you prefer, leave them on my talk page. This would include links to arbcom cases, checkuser requests, etc. This is simply so that I have all the necessary information to make the request. —Viriditas | Talk00:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be O.K. if I leave the links on this page in clumps as I collect them? Some reading material to start you off:
Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati- these were the sock puppets who filed most AN/I's etc. - they were discovered by a recused Arbitrator during the Starwood Arbitraion.
Then there are many instances of editors like User:Zeraeph casually accusing me on AN/I.
Do you know about the current Arbitration which I am included in?
My dear friend,
Are you ok? seems like spending a busy time. Busy time is ok, but are you ok? Somehow it feels like your engagement is not pleasant now a days! Look after yourself.
Shoovrow (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have tagged this, and architectural galss as references and citation. I can't do much about architectural glass which I tidied up, but didn't write.. Like a lot of other such articles, it's been written by people in the trade. It can be nigh on impossible to get citation. yet the practical knowledge of such editors is invaluable.
As for Leadlight... now that's another problem.. The article is the product of a great many books and looking at 1000s of windows.
For example- While the famous Birdy panes at York are reproduced over and over, and have been sold as postcards since about 1890, it's hard to source the fact that they are the most famous little stained-glass images of painted birdies in thhe world. And that all the thousands of similar 19th and 20th century birdies sprang from 'them, right down to the one thhat appears in the window of Hagrid's hut in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Whether or not I can find a sentence in a book that actually says something like that is very doubtful. But this stuff isn't Personal research. It's a long tradition..... The main difficulty comes when info in a single sentence has been drawn from several different sources.
This is a real problem on Wikipedia in general. See sourceing PD content which, although referring to PD, is essentially the same problem. Wikipedia's policy of WP:V and WP:RS and WP:CITE are important to ensure Wikipedia articles are quality products. This is it's potential superiority over the Encyclopedia Britannica, as it does not source its articles and it has been proven to be wrong some of the time. Remember, Wikipedia's policy is "not truth but verifiablity". No Original Research means that just because an editor knows it is true, or has personally seen it or experienced it, is not good enough under WP:OR. Please do not regard the tag as diminishing the article.
That the article has a tag on it is meant to inspire those who go to the page to start building up the citation base. Any Wikipedia article should not depend on one person for its development. Others can supply citations you can not. Wikipedia is a community project. Remember though, information that is not cited is vulnerable to removal or alteration by any editor, per Wikipedia policy. Regards, Mattisse12:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, It seems like my message was not clear in any way. I meant after you informed me that you will see the article at wiki on Death and adjustment hypotheses (article name - Death and Adjustment Hypotheses)I never saw any trace in its history. If its perfect, then fine, we should not modify it. But after you got my book in hand, it will be a lot easier for you to upgrade the article.
Shoovrow (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking my CEU courses for my license renewal. I am reading that delirium is associated with the dying phases of cancer and other illnesses. Do you know the percentage of patients experiencing delirium in the hours to days before their death? Mattisse19:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is my connection to ACE? I have less connection than you. I do not know anything about the subject matter as you do and do not edit related articles. My original involvement was putting {{Fact}} tages on Starwood articles, hence the sockpuppets who pursued me for six months. I was caught up in the Starwood arbitration because of the sock puppets, but the ArbCon found no problem with my behavior. I do not edit articles that are even peripherally connected with the subject matter of Starwood unlike you, at least not knowingly as it is not a subject matter that interests me at all. I do not get where you are coming from. I voted for you for admin happily, so I am totally surprised at this reaction from you now. Rather, you should stay away from Starwood, it seems to me as there is overlap in your interest areas and Rosencomet's . Regards, Mattisse00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, no, Mattisse, you misunderstood. I am sorry if it wasn't clear. I meant it would be best if you made the changes to the article, because you have no connection to ACE. I meant that any of us who have no connection to ACE should do the changes, instead of Rosenbaum. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Is that clear? I'm sorry to have unintentionally caused you distress. - Kathryn NicDhàna♫♦♫00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in the articles or the subject matter. Rosencomet still holds me responsible for everything (as evinced by a recent dialog in which you entered involving Vitiras over Rosencommet -- and I truly thank you for that). I would be a fool to do the type of editing you are suggesting. I am not in the mood to ask for trouble. Sincerely, Mattisse00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was flicking through random articles and thought this could be sooo much better and more in-depth. And I thought of you lol, don't know if it's one you fancy doing something with. Merkinsmum00:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind at all if I moved the title of the piece to just "Beifudi site"? I think that just using the site name might be better and fit with the precedence for most archaeological site articles. Alternatively, check out Toro (archaeological site). What do you think about the name of the Beifudi article? Grunty Thraveswain (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that would be a better name for it, feel free, especially if a renaming would allow it to fit in with other such sites about China. Regards, Mattisse22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and....
Dear Mattisse,
I am very glad! I am worried about you too. It feels like you are in some chronic stress. If you read my book that would be very nice! If you suggest someone to read it that would be double as nice!!
Shoovrow (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "unsourced" tag is valid; but the edit summary referred to a "company web site"! Hypericon is a legitimate, fan-run, not-for-profit science fiction convention, with no company involved. The distinction is an important one to many of us. --Orange Mike | Talk18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC) (typing this from the hotel where Chattacon, another Tennessee SF convention, is currently going on)[reply]
I lost all the e-mails came within the last 24 hours at hmanjur@bttb.net.bd address. So its better to use the mohammadsamirhossain@yahhoo.com one.
Shoovrow (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing your citations into a different (yet totally acceptable) format has led you to believe that I am attempting to "own" this article? I don't quite understand what you're trying to imply here. The reason I changed your citation method is because the way you cited the book Chinese Architecture created problems; refer to the featured article on Augustus where an experienced editor showed me how to cite and reference the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus book which had multiple authors who wrote individual chapters and had an overall editor (in the case of the article you began, Nancy Steinhardt is the chief editor and multiple authors are designated for single chapters).
When you created the refs for the Chinese Architecture book, you wrote the citation as <ref name="nancy">, which created problems when you wanted to designate different page numbers (such as 1–5, or 1, 7., etc.) You also forgot to mention Qiao Yun, who wrote the last six pages of the introduction in Chinese Architecture.
Breaking from the topic here, do you like the new section I added on the oldest existent wooden architecture? If you want, I can expand the article with more info on the Tang Dynasty structures found at Mount Wutai.--Pericles of AthensTalk15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way you changed the citation method creates problems for me. This is the article I saved after you supported User talk:PalaceGuard008's destruction of the original article I wrote. Why do you want to do this a second time? It is against wikipedia policy for an editor to unilaterally change the citation method without consensus. Wikipedia policy is to retain the original method of citation, whether you like it or not, until consensus is reached to change. Please change it back. You do not WP:OWN the article. Mattisse15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the message I left on the discussion page of the article. No one is stopping you from changing the article template back to the way it was, I honestly don't care how you cite your articles. I just had to fix several mistakes that you made, including last and first names reversed and placing all citations under one ref type so that individual pages could that you later cited under the same "ref" did not appear in the notes section.--Pericles of AthensTalk15:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine and dandy, but you still haven't fixed the problem with your references and your notes section. Please do that, because there are several mistakes.--Pericles of AthensTalk15:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you do not fully understand the reference method being used before your wholesale change. FYi, I have been tied up in litigation over the User:PalaceGuard008 fiasco, which you condoned, eventually leading to an Arbitration that just concluded. Because I have been busy with that fallout does not mean that you can leap on mistakes of mine in the article that I have not had time to change, due to litigation and awfulness, as a reason to take over the article. Lol! Mattisse15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was unaware that you were still working on the article or that you were still in an edit conflict with PalaceGuard. Since you deleted all of the material I just added from the Steinhardt article (2004), I take it then that you believe describing the oldest existent wooden architecture in an article about ancient wooden architecture is unneccessary? I thought the info was rather relevant to the topic.--Pericles of AthensTalk15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to once again being kicked aside and the article I created being taken over and WP:OWN by another editor, first User:PalaceGuard008, now you on the very same article. If you want to work collaboratively on the article, that would be welcome. Wholesale take over (on the grounds, I guess, that you are a superior editor because of the editing errors of mine you pointed out) is not. Lol! Mattisse15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Everyone makes mistakes Mattisse; how is it that pointing out your mistakes suddenly enthrones me as the owner of this article? I fail to see the logic, and I think you are misconstruing my own intentions, which was to improve the article (I hadn't heard from you in months, I didn't know if you were still alive! Lol). Anywho, I wrote this recently on the talk page for the article:
Ok. I have a question: why do you like using that citation format of typing out the entire book reference for every single inline citation found in the article? It seems a bit laborious, excessive, and time-consuming to me (let alone adding unneccessary Kilobytes to the article), and a lot of effort could be saved by simply writing the full book reference one time in a "reference" section that is split from a "notes" section. Plus, I think it looks cleaner to have a notes section with a simple author's name and the page number next to it, as you would see in most books or journals that use footnotes to cite source materials that they label in full at the end of the book or journal.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I re-added my material on the earliest extant Chinese wooden architecture (the only thing I plan on adding to the article) while keeping with your style of inline citations. I dislike this style of citations, but since you seem so dead-set in keeping it I don't mind following what you've already done. If there's anything you object to, make it known on the talk page there.--Pericles of AthensTalk19:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for informing me. I dislike vehemently your style of citations also but I would never think to unilaterally change them in an article. I know that I was sloppy in that article, and I explained why (lack of time, under stress, arbitration etc.). Again, citation style is a matter of personal preference. Your style is hard for me to follow because it is not intuitive, meaning I guess, my training is in a science and the professional citation system I was trained in is very different. Please be tolerant of this. Mattisse19:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I will keep this in mind for the future, although I am much more concerned with editing general Chinese history articles than specifically Chinese architectural articles (that field is all yours, take it). I slightly doubt that I will be editing any of the architectural articles you will be working on in the future. You've already expressed concern on my talk page back in October that I could possibly "undermine" all of your efforts to use what you believe to be the most accurate and scholarly terminology for global architectural terms (such as zaojing instead of caisson). Personally I didn't want to be dragged into that fruitless argument between you and PalaceGuard008, and I'm sorry that my simple opinion that either zaojing or caisson could be used in the same article has led you to believe I'm some sort of enemy of yours. I miss the nice Mattisse who left me friendly messages on my talk page back in August and September; what happened to that Mattisse?--Pericles of AthensTalk19:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at first you said either name would do. Then you posted to User:PalaceGuard008's [24] page, behind my back so to speak, that Caisson was the better name, that you were only going on what I wrote before and you inferred that I misled you. That started his #REDIRECT and copy/paste of the zaojing article into Caisson and ultimately, to an Arbitration. Your going behind my back on that was what prompted me to comment to you that I would not work with you any more. Mattisse20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Now you're simply putting words in my mouth by saying I said "Caisson was the better name". No, that's not what I said at all. After I said there's no difference in the concept between a Caisson and zaojing and that you guys should "draw straws or play rock paper scissors" to settle the matter on your own, here's what I said in addition: "because there are articles on East Asian topics that have English originated titles or exact renditions of East Asian terms." You can't get more neutral than that; that's the very definition of taking a neutral stance, by saying you could do something one way or the other. Now you are blaming me for something PalaceGuard008 did? I'm sorry, I fail to see how my tiny input had anything to do with his own actions. I think you are stretching my role in this about as far as possible.--Pericles of AthensTalk20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copy)
This is a quotation from your second comment, sent to PalaceGuard008 only, and not on the article talk page nor to me.
After reading the Caisson article (which I really didn't before, I only went on Mattise's word that it focuses solely on the Forbidden City) it is plain and obvious as day to see they are the same exact thing, only using English terminology and the exact Chinese terminology. I really don't see what all the fuss is about...
I had explained to you why the Chinese terminology was important to me. If you don't know what "all the the fuss is about ...", that only means it is not important to you. You are inferring that it is ridiculous that it is important to someone else. Well, it was important enough to generate an illegal #REDIRECT and copy paste. I wonder how you would feel if an issue that was important to you was treated that way. Judging from your reaction over the citations, I would say you might see what "all the the fuss is about" when it is relevant in your judgment. Mattisse20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from your reaction over the citations, I would say you might see what "all the the fuss is about" when it is relevant in your judgment.
What "reaction" are we talking about here? So far I've expressed mild concern with you changing the article's citations back to the original format. The only thing I've done was note that you've made a few mistakes that need fixing; it's certainly nothing to get upset about, and I fail to see the parallel with this and your ongoing edit war with PalaceGuard008. You know what, I still don't see what "all the fuss is about"; I think spending entire months bickering and fighting about obscure architectural terminology is excessive indeed. I don't think it was right for him to REDIRECT without your consent, but this is really something two mature adults could have handled in a day.--Pericles of AthensTalk21:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar award
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I, PericlesofAthens, award you Mattisse this barnstar in recognition of your tireless contributions in starting and expanding many articles on architectural topics. Well done!--Pericles of AthensTalk16:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would draw your attention to this on my talk page, noted and responded to merely a week and a couple of days before you posted your variant. Hence, "old news". Seeing as you are incapable of recognising any detail that does not fit into your unique perception of events I am not even going to bother with the piffle that concludes your comment, above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Link for my memory [26] and diff [27][reply]
Sorry, LessHeard vanU. It is just that there is no sign that you have learned anything. You are one of those Admins that does not actually create or edit articles, so it is hard for you to see issues from an editors point of view. Mattisse17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mattisse, I recommend that you let this drop now. You will do better to take the high road and let it go. ArbCom had their say, and continuing to raise this will not bode well for you, unless there is a new problem with LHvU. And in case LHvU is reading, his response to you above wasn't exceedingly civil or helpful, although I can understand that he may feel that you're continuing to poke him about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which user's unblock were you referring to here? [28]
I'm not interested in furthering any investigation into Fred's conduct, but I'd like to help you to resolve your qualms about him if possible. --Tony Sidaway23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. However, to find the block would require that I make the effort to go find it for, as you point out, no outcome. The unblocking is only a tiny issue relative to the whole of what has transpired. And, of course, any unblocking can be justified even in very equivocal cases, as I have observed. So, what would be the point? I have my opinion of Fred, based on the Arbitration experience plus one year of observing his continued interaction with the person who brought (or rather in whose behalf the sock puppets brought) the Arbitration case to begin with. And, by the way, sock puppets have continued to turn up, a couple just recently. Fred has an ongoing interaction with this person and choses to be oblivious of this. As you say, Fred can do what he wants. Thanks anyway. Mattisse23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IRC Arbitration page
I'm reaching out to you and asking that you reconsider striking your comments on this page. I too am just an ordinary editor who's been here for a couple of years; I know how disappointing it is to discover that the 'real' Wikipedia is not the Utopian one of legend. It's my belief, however, that if not for folks like us speaking out on issues we believe in, logically and sensibly, the Wikipedia experience here will continue to degenerate for us and for others. It was very reassuring to see your words on that page, to know that another editor had an opinion similar to mine. Believe it or not, there are a few Wikipedians who listen, and some of them are even administrators. Please reconsider your strikethroughs. Your voice is respected. Risker (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've probably been 'involved' with Wikipedia for too long now to fully understand what it feels like to feel like you are on the outside looking in, but I do remember for the first few years struggling to come to terms with the way things really worked. Voices like yours are a breath of fresh air and are sorely needed. Please don't retreat from that discussion. Your voice is as valuable as anyone else's, possibly more so. And for the record, I've only been here a year or so longer than you, and for much of the first year I did little editing. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought very hard about this but I cannot reconsider, as much as I would like to support a fellow editor. The whole thing is too ugly and depressing. It is not as if anything good will come of the Arbitration or that I can contribute anything of value. Yesterday made that clear, if there was any doubt, as well as the "value" held of my opinion. The Arbitration has revealed much about why my two years here have been so unpleasant and I will take it all as a huge lesson learned for me. Regards, Mattisse23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, there, I hope you're well. There is an editor to the above article who has removed sourced material. I'm not an expert so I'm bringing this to your attention in case you want to express an opinion. Regards --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes to the page, specifically removing the section on Mitigating factors. Insanity is never a mitigating factor. I also put some requests for citations for the last section which, at least to me, is confusing. I am not sure of the specific issue you are referring to. Could you point it out? Regards, Mattisse18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was this diff, but I see it's since been reverted. There was a comment on the talk page explaining why it had been removed which, frankly I didn't understand; up to you if you wish to keep an eye on it. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Mattisse, I saw your tag of unreferenced on Elin Lerum Boasson. Just a friendly notice to remind you that when you add a tag to an article also add the date. I'll use an unreferenced tag as an example:
If you have the time to read the transcript I would appreciate you looking at this section again, and spelling out which passage(s) you think are opinion statements.
Sorry. What I meant was that the section is filled with statements that take a particular point of view but are not footnoted so the reader does not know where to look to verify whether these statements are true or not, per WP:V and WP:RS. Regards, Mattisse14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uvs Nuur
Hi, I hope you're not trying to make a point by removing all information about the basin from the Uvs Nuur article? It is entirely reasonable to include information on both the lake and the basin there, but I don't think your original edit made sense in context. Or are you planning to create a seperate article about the basin? --Latebird (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this discussion before. I believe you were the one that suggested renaming the article to basin on the talk page, as the general name of Uvs Nuur is vague and covers differing area, depending on the sources you consult. However, if you do not want to change the name to basin, then I feel very strongly in the interests of clarity (since the subject to many readers is confusing,including to me when I first started looking into it), the references to "basin" should be removed. The basin deserves it's own article. I have worked, in general, to match World Heritage Sites with the names of the articles corresponding to them, as there are vast mismatching common here. It does not make sense otherwise, and diminishes the encyclopedia. If you want, we can have an RFC over it, as I feel strongly enough about these disparities between World Heritage Site names and Wikipedia article names to settle this once and for all. I will abide by any RFC outcome and desist my efforts to match World Heritage Site names with articles if that is required. Regards, Mattisse15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the talk page, you'll find that I didn't suggest renaming the lake article to basin. I suggested merging the two articles that previously existed, because they essentially contained the same information. The result is, that the article now contains information on both topics. My editor note on my first revert was thus technically somewhat inaccurate, sorry for that. As long as there is not enough specific information to justify a seperate article, including information about the basin in the article about the lake is the natural thing to do. If you find a good way to split the topics again without creating too much redundancy, then you'll have my full support. But removing valid information just so that a heritage sites list doesn't need to link to a slightly different title sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Such formalisms should not override common sense. --Latebird (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict}:::On the question of "sufficient information", I think that is because Uvs Nuur is a vague term. That is what I gathered from combing through what sources I could find, a the term does not always include the same elements, depending what you consult. Often it is used very loosely, which I don't think is helpful. I would, as I said, prefer to have an article that directly addresses the World Heritage Site use the WHS wording and perhaps the creation of other articles as required. I know I have spent many a day on other World Heritage Sites trying to figure out which Wikipedia article their listing is referring to. Somethimes the name is completely difference, as editors tend to use local names and it can become very confusing. Also, I am hoping more information will emerge regarding Uvs Nuur. There are also ethnic and nationalistic conflicts over the terms, which is why, for World Heritage Sites, I would rather stick to the terms the WHS use. Mattisse16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There are also geographic articles that describe the area and archeological findings there and barely mention Uvs Nuur at all. I admit that some time ago I went on a crusade to up the visibility of the area and edited extensively these articles and created others as I attempted to work out my confusion. Perhaps this hindered. Mattisse16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can the name of a geographical feature (the lake) be "vague"? If it is used in a possibly ambiguous way, then that's probably an application of "pars pro toto". Still better than the other way round in my eyes. In this specific case, I don't think that linking from the heritage list to the lake article will confuse anyone, but as I said I'm not fundamentally opposed to a split. What other geographial and archeological articles are there about the area? Or do you mean outside of WP? --Latebird (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must have been lying then about being confused, or else I am just dumb. It is a basin and only is a "lake" at times it has water in it It is a watershed area, what they call an endorheic basin. Anyway, I see you have merged many articles I wrote, so I think I will step out and leave the article to you. It's yours and I will not interfere. I was interested in the geographic aspects anyway and that has been muddied and/or removed. There are plenty of articles on the area I can work on that are actually more interesting anyway and more geologically oriented. Amazing though, what can happen if an editor turns his back for a minute and doesn't monitor an article he has been working on! (Hopefully you will take over every article I am involved in regarding the general area!) Good luck. Mattisse17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I merged many articles you wrote? Which ones? Actually, I didn't even merge this one myself. And if I happen to merge articles, I don't normally mind who created them, I just try to follow what I consider common sense. If you think you know better, why don't you present your arguments instead of just brushing my questions and suggestions aside, and acting generally hostile? Do you expect anyone to just share your opinions right from the start? I was already surprised when you talked about a possible RFC in your first response, before even trying to establish a meaningful conversation. I really hope this is not your general style of discussion. --Latebird (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope revert is not your general style of conducing edit discussions. Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision. The arbs all agree that to use Revert as you did for a content disagreement is Reversion not a substitute for discussion - two different finding of this - reversion is basically for obviously vandalism only plus a finding of Pages are not owned which is obviously not your view. I certainly will not name any articles to you as I do not want them disrupted further. Mattisse17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matisse, you can see latebird's recent edits here. While he has touched the article two or three times in the last days, he does not seem to have done anything of what you accuse him of. The merging was done by P199 and the redirect was created by Mikkalai who also moved Ubsunur hollow to Uvs nuur basin [29]. I was the one who put a merge tag on the Ubsunur hollow article [30] and retracted it a short time later [31]. I don't think anyone of us acted in bad faith. Who carried out all these changes are not particularly difficult to check, for me it is really hard to understand why you keep on accusing latebird. Should you suppose he is sockpuppeting, you could always ask the admins to check him. This would, however be a rather grave accusation and should not be thrown around lightly. Otherwise, I suggest you try and calm down a bit.
I am not accusing latebird of sockpuppeting. And I am not sophisticated in deciphering the #REDIRECTs and merging. All I know is that articles that I put effort into are disappearing (now I am keeping copies as I find they have been rendered inaccessible by this last round) and being merged inappropriately, from my point of view, and without discussion. I go to bed and when I get up I find another round of merge/redirect and an unappropriate disambig page (violating wikipedia's disambig page policies) has been created. I had not thought of sockpuppets, merely thinking latebird just did not know the subject matter well. But if more editors are involved, perhaps it is what they call meatpuppet. I do not know how to account for the stubborn insistence of combining/merging/redirecting without consultation -- which is against wiki policy. Mattisse18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, hollow as used in this case, is obviously not the same thing as depression or basin as it contains mountains and glaciers and such. The hollow was granted protection at different times than the basin, and the basin is incorrectly called Russia's first WHS. Mattisse18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we discuss the meaning of hollow and incorrect statements at the article's talk page.
Regarding the redirecting etc. without consultation, it's probably just a by-product of WP:BOLD. I can tell you that I am not an alter ego of latebird, and I also really don't think the other involved editors are.
You can usually retrieve older texts of an article from the version history of the respective article (I think the only exception is when aricles get deleted). This does not involve more then a few mouseclicks, plus possibly a c&p, and (I think) is explained here. Regards, Yaan (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is against policy to #REDIRECT without proposing a merege. This has been clarified on AN/I many times. It is unbelievably inconsiderate. It takes a ton of AGF to believe in the fair motivations of an editor who repeatedly engages in such behavior. As far as retrieving old versions of the text, the #REDIRECT was done in such a way that the old text does not show up in the history so I cannot retrieve it that way. Fortunately, I began to suspect the motivations of the editor doing such repeated #REDIRECTS, so I copied it before the last #REDIRECT. As far as I can tell it cannot be retrieved from the redirect. Perhaps it was deleted, along with the edit history. I may complain about this. Mattisse19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask you how you were able to retrive those diffs? I went to the #REDIRECT page and there did not seem to be a way. The previous version did not show up in the history. Mattisse20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can go to Ubsunur hollow and land here (Uvs nuur basin page), then click on the small "(Redirected from Ubsunur Hollow)" just below the article's title, and land here,then click on the "history" tab and land here, and then you should be able to choose the diff you want.
I in fact first read the talk page and saw that P199 mentioned that he had merged the two articles, and then I looked at P199's edit history here. You can get there from the edit history of the discussion page by clicking at the "contribs" behind P199's name.
Mikkalai's edit can be found on the edit history of the page he moved Ubsunur Hollow to, i.e. at Uvs Nuur basinhere (Mikkalai originally only moved the article to "Uvs Nuur Basin", with capitalized 'B', and another user moved it further to "Uvs Nuur basin"). Yaan (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. It is so obscure that it is not something I could ever do on my own. It is very devious, in my opinion, and makes wikipedia a very unpleasant place for people like me. I believe I will complain about this, probably to no effect, but why did User:P199 get involved anyway? Maybe there is sockpuppet/meatpuppet going on, as the whole way this was done does not make sense to me. Mattisse20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing you need to keep in mind is that, when an article is moved, the edit history is moved too. Re. P199, I propose you ask him. Yaan (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find the history of all the articles (three) that were merged into that one article. Also, the names were changed so many times that I cannot find all the articles. Right now, I cannot even find the disambig page. Everything has been redirected/merged/deleted out of existence. As far as asking P199, I do not think it will accomplish anything, as any editor who behaves in that way is not going to give me a helpful answer. It is unfortunate that such editors exist here, but I know that wikipedia has a nasty element. Mattisse21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:199 has a very unusual edit history that does not include any interest in the articles under discussion. His edit history does not show that he made the changes you attribute to him. Maybe you are mistaken. Mattisse21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mattisse, could I convince you to use slightly more informative edit summaries? You seem to have a habit of writing "added text" or "added word" there. For someone checking the edit history, this hides more than it reveals. Ideally, the edit summary would include at least a keyword, summarizing what the addition was actually about. That makes it much easier to find a specific edit later, when trying to figure out who wrote what and in which sequence. As an example, this edit might benefit from an edit summary including something along the lines of "deities in tibetan buddhism". Do you see what a difference that makes when compared to a simple "added text"? If you start to study the edit histories more yourself, then the advantages will become even more obvious. --Latebird (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. I will try for your sake. Typically I find the edit summaries of others either uninformative, or worse, misleading. So I try to be neutral, since a person can just look at the diff on the watchlist and see exactly what the edit was without any effort at all. But I will to do as you say. Mattisse18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Latebird, Mattisse... As I have begun following Wiki more closely of late, using my customized watchlist bookmark, I suddenly became jarringly aware that someone can perform 24 significant edits, label their last one as some sort of relatively non-significant issue, I can, even if I hit 'diff', miss out on so much and have learned to instead head for the topic, then for the history tab so I can see just what has happened.
And, being aware of this, I have now begun (should I have to go back and correct one or more minor issue(s) or error(s), to 'carry forward' what I have been involved in so when someone is browsing their watchlist, they can know better what they be interested in looking more deeply into..
Another way of looking at it, especially when you are adding to the talk page, is that your sometimes lengthy thoughtful and thought-provoking additions might possibly be totally overlooked, not read, by the audience you have in mind...
Do you have that javascript in your monobook.js? It will show the whole edit, even if it is several paragraphs long, just by hovering over the diff on the watchlist. It makes all the difference in the world - for a long time I didn't know about it. I find that many people leave extremely misleading summaries! Mattisse21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a javascript?? my monobook.js?? Sounds great, but don't have a clue what that is all about. I will Google all that some day when I have time to tackle all this technical stuff. Is it maybe explained here at en.Wikipedia.org so I can site search? Thanks so much. Anything that makes my time here briefer gives me more time with my pup - she gets bummed out when I get settled down at the keyboard. Spotted Owl (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vogue disc.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vogue disc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
I will write you. I just have been so very very tired. I have not forgotten and think about doing it every day. Just that it is so hard to explain. Mattisse18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand.
Neologism
You claimed waterwings was a neologism. Waterwings are pretty notable, as you can hardly go to a public beach or swimming pool without seeing someone wearing them. But as English is not my first language, I don't know if "waterwings" is the most correct term for them, or is there one that is in wider use. JIP | Talk18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I notice you tagged the waterwings article without explaining on the discussion page. Do you think you could add a brief explanation of why you tagged it, on the discussion page? Otherwise it's hard to see what needs addressing. Thanks. Skittle (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Üüreg Nuur image
This view in Google Maps shows both Üüreg Nuur and Uvs Nuur next to each other. It would have been trivial for you to check this yourself, instead of mounting unjustified personal attacks against me about it.
Since you have in the mean time added the misnamed image to several articles without a good reason, please change all those instances to the correct image name Image:Uureg Nuur.jpg now, so that the old file can be deleted as it should. --Latebird (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop ordering me around and making decisions about articles in the last few days that have existed for a long time (and in which you played no role previously). You come in like the boss and make decisions and take actions without consultation or consensus. This is hardly the atmosphere if you desire cooperation from me. As far as I know, you are not the king and should obtain consensus before you make major changes. Mattisse15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you add images to articles that are clearly and demonstrably incorrect like in this case, then you'll have to expect that other editors politely ask you to correct your mistake. Or do you expect other people to clean up after you? Since the Google Maps link above proves beyond any reasonble doubt that your opinion is mistaken, no further consensus is needed here. Reality as documented by reliable sources always takes precedence. --Latebird (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not ask me, politely or otherwise, to "correct" my mistake. You merely removed the image from the article and put it up for deletion without consulting me. Or is that your way to "politely ask you to correct your mistake"? Mattisse16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uvs Nuur Issue
Hi -- I'm trying to get a handle on what's happening over there. Would you be willing to not edit that article for an hour and a half to an hour while I try to read and wrap my mind around what's happened and what the essence of the dispute is? I'll let you know when I've at least read up to what's there now. Let me know if you have concerns. Aelfthrytha (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I last edited the article 01:17, 14 February 2008 and do not intend to edit it or any others in that area again. I have been effectively driven off. I had a pleasant time learning about the area while I was writing the articles. But I am not prepared to deal with the level of aggression and ownership that has suddenly erupted after many months of peaceful editing. I am willing to move on to sweeter pastures with a more open mentality, like science and legal articles where the editors are kinder and do not redirect etc. without discussion and consensus. Mattisse22:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies
I apologize for harsh tone with respect to you. I was pissed off by wikilawyering of an occasional looker-peeper and you was hit by ricochet. Please notice that I have agreed with your opinion that the toponymical text in question did not belong to intro and as you may see I have found a non-obtrusive place for it before this administritis-driven Hux started pushing people around. Especially stupid was his accusation that I somehow "own" the page, when in fact I was saying that I was not going to join the tug-of-war. Apologies again. `'Míkka>t04:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped doing anything significant there because I am sick and tired of ignorant people trying to suit facts to their level of understanding. After long and painful experience I have found it more productive to go away until they become tired with toying in one place and go away elsewhere. Wikipedia articles are not matter of life and death and may wait. `'Míkka>t04:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. After saving my text here I have noticed your remark just above mine. So we are in agreement in this respect as well :-). Good better luck! `'Míkka>t04:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mattisse, I'm not willing to tolerate your entirely baseless accusations any longer. The next time you make clearly incorrect claims (like the last time here), attributing statements and opinions to me that I never made or held, you will be reported for person attacks, uncivility, and violation of any other Wikipedia policy that happens to match the specific situation. What you're doing is systematically coming closer and closer to libel, which is no trivial matter. Please be aware that other editors and especially admins have no problem in checking the relevant edit histories and diffs, and I have no problem in providing them, so that any unsubstianted claims by you are trivial to document. My very long patience with your unjustified but exceedingly hostile behaviour is now over. Please get a grip on reality, provide diffs for anything negative you claim about me, or face the consequences. Thanks for your understanding. --Latebird (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. Until you stop your unilateral changing of articles and requesting deletion of images without consulting me, I cannot consider you other that violating wiki policy on consensus. I feel like I have been putting up with your arbitrary behavior on articles I have worked on for a while and on which you suddenly turn up on and disrupt without consensus. Mattisse16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see, the "unilateral changing of articles" and "disrupt without consensus" bits would be such claims that you need to prove with a diff each (or several), showing the before and after situation. Without that, they're unsubstantiated accusations (a less polite person than me might say: lies).
Btw: "Without consulting you"? Do you happen to WP:OWN an image that someone elseuploaded to the Commons? And in case you really don't understand that: A request for deletion is a formal way to ask other editors what they think about it, hence the exact opposite of acting unilaterally. Not to mention that I reported about that request here for you and other interested editors to see and possibly step in if I should have happened to be mistaken (which, despite your claims to the opposite, wasn't the case). And the image will not be gone, it has already been replaced by a copy with the correct name. --Latebird (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care enough to wade into the history of this unsavory experience. I know that the joy of creating the articles last year and learning about that area of the world is lost for me. As for the image, I did not know it was in the commons. I uploaded it myself from NASA. I had not seen the image before. Mattisse18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The experience only became unsavoury because you chose to ignore the history right from the start. That seems to be a sad pattern here: Don't look at what really happened, but instead just scream murder. And whoever you first noticed around will then forever be the scapegoat in your eyes. Time to get back to reality! --Latebird (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, Mattisse, is: even if information/image is wrong, it is evidence in reliable source, but nobody can correct this mistake without your agreement (you call this consensus). You are acting like article owner. But you are it's editor not less not more. Nobody has no private articles in Wiki, you see. In this question we have a consensus, I hope. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed yesterday by a couple of editors that "my mistakes" have been changed and fixed. So I do not know what you are asking me now. You are the first editor to ask my opinion on the matter and I am confused by this. I do not know how to answer your question. What are you asking my opinion on? You have to be more specific, as there could be up to five articles involved. (Don't know the current state now.) Further, it has been made clear to me that my contributions are not wanted by that group of editors. Mattisse14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you are mistaken about any consensus being required from me. The other changes were make without my consensus, indeed most of the time without any discussion or warning. I would go to an article and find it did not exist anymore because it had been redirected. I cannot see that my consensus is suddenly required now. I believe your perception is mistaken. Mattisse14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation:"You did not ask me, politely or otherwise, to "correct" my mistake. You merely removed the image from the article and put it up for deletion without consulting me." How we can understand this? You could make routine your watchlist checking and notice what happened, isn't it? Your (NASA) image as such is not wrong, but wrong is its tytle, isn't it? You really beleave this is Uvs Nuur? Even if so this image is not Uvs Nuur. Everybody, you, me, even Latebird can post it for deletion. But you want be asked for your agreement? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have 1,500 pages on my watchlist. I remove as much as I can everyday. Further, I spend most of my time writing and researching articles when I am on Wikipedia. So, no. I do not see everything on the watchlist. And especially images. I never watch for images, as a problem with an image I have uploaded has never come up before in this manner. I have received four or five bot notes over the years regarding copyright status on my talkpage, but that's it. I have never had an image changed without a note to me on my talkpage. I had not a clue about Latebird's underground workings and I am still not clear about it. I am glad the image was not speedy deleted as Latebird requested. I will leave it at that. Mattisse15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have an answer: when it is copyright problem you can resolve it, but you can not make the image of Üüreg Nuur the image of Uvs Nuur. The first one has to be deleted.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all that was explained to me later, after deletions, after the speedy delete put on the image before any explanation to me, etc. etc. I was operating in a vacuum of information. In any case, those editors have clearly taken over those articles now so the only way I will ever edit one of them again is if I notice that they have incorrectly used a reference I provided. Mattisse16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An other one time: you don't have any special rights to decide the future of this image. It is not your image, but NASA. Your is image uploading and naming. You made a mistake. Everybody - you, me, even Latebird can correct this mistake. You are interested in this image fortune? If so - check your watchlist. You don't have a time? Nobody but you can help yourself. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Now I know that kind of behavior is possible. I doubt I will be uploading any more for the subject area concerning the group of editors under discussion. However, thank you for your advice if I should find myself involved with these sort of editors again. Actually, my preference is to just move on. I did not realize the viciousness of these editors or I would have done so before. No content on Wikipedia is important enough to undergo this type of treatment. They obviously do not want "outsiders" concerned in their area and do not respect an "outsiders" opinion. I know that now and will stay away. Mattisse17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am an outsider in many many fields. I'm sure a lot of Wiki editors make edits in very different spheres. An what? If your behavior is constructive, you want help to improve the WP - you are welcome. For you may be your position in WP is very important. You can defend your opinion with your arguments - but I see your emotions, not arguments... Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edit in a vast number of fields and only rarely in my own. I admit my reaction to this incident was emotional. I did not have a clue what was happening when suddenly a multitude of editors began Redirecting, Moving, setting up disambig pages (some of these editors appeared to be warring with each other) and I reacted poorly. I should have just bowed out in the face of such behavior. There are so many areas of the world that I have edited peacefully in for a long time. In the scheme of things this area is not important. I was happy to edit there because the articles are in poor shape and I like cleaning articles up, providing references etc because it is a form of learning about the area. However I am even happier to edit where the atmosphere is calmer and where editors do not require that you speak the native language. In India there were many conflicts over names because of the many languages, religions and ethnic groups there, but somehow the only real trouble was caused by sock puppets and not by editors. I need not trouble you any more. I will stay away from your area. Mattisse18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"where editors do not require that you speak the native language" - I'm not native English speaker, you see. And Mongolian, and Tuvan. I'm not native speaker in Polish, but I'm editing in Polish WP, German WP, English WP, German WP. Less contributions I've made in my native language - but a lot of wikipedians are translating my edits in their languages... Your edits were translated too, I hope. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)
Truthfully, the issue has never come up. As I mentioned, India had a lot of naming disagreements. Eventually these were worked out, in most cases, with the decision to use the English version of names since this is an English Wikipedia and because these names were popular in search engines. They also made the decision to use World Heritage Site names for World Heritage Sites. I think the openness of India has resulted in the greater number and sophistication of their articles compared to many countries. I have edited articles about countries on almost every continent in the world, South America, Africa, Asia, United States, Caribbean ... and on many subjects and created many articles. In cases where someone disagreed with what I wrote, they did not change it without discussion first. Even many Russian articles, Lake Baikal for example, I worked on with no problems and created many articles related to that article, other lakes, rivers, mountains etc. without this sort of conflict. Perhaps I have just been lucky. Regards, Mattisse18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uvs Nuur case indicates a problem presence: Mongolian and Russian term for the number of orographic/geomorphologic objects are the same, but English translations in WP are basin, depression, hollow and valley. And we need respect official names for the nonorographic objects (natural reserves) even their names differ to orographic/geomorphologic name. This is English language/En:Wiki problem: Mongols and Russians have no problem in this case. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
latebird
I really think it is you who is at fault here, not him. Maybe you need to try to get a bit calm first before striking back, and try to find out who actually did what. Most changes (except article deletions, I think) can be undone rather easily, so maybe if you find out how to do this it might also help in a number of cases. I do not think latebird is against outside editors, in fact he was the one who made me register at WP. There is a problem with inaccuracies and mistakes in Mongolia-related articles (although the situation has improved), and many of these are difficult to sort out, so when we find one that is clear we usually just change it. This is also what is endorsed by WP:BOLD. Yaan (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did undo them. But a variety of editors, friends of Latebird? jumped in again and made all sorts of changes and redirects again with no explanation, or else very cursory ones. (Luckily I had save a copy of the one I cared about in a sandbox). Not one of them was concerned about content -- just the translation of the Russian name. I guess that is the sole concern here. As I said, I will not be contributing any more content, so I guess Latebird and friends will have to do something besides redirecting and renaming if they want content in their articles. You do not think that I, as the creator and sole editor of these articles since last year, did not deserve some consultation before all this was done? None of these other editors have touched these articles until last week or so, although I created them last year. I have had to recreate Ubsunur Hollow twice in the last few days. It was originally created last year sometime, but it's history is lost to me through all the redirects and recreations. Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve is one of its incarnations but it, as was the original article was redirected out of existence until I restored it, really for no reason now, as so many other changes have been made. It is impossible to recreate what happened. And I don't know what happened to the disambig page which someone else made without consultation or consensus giving new names to the articles -- actually that is where Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve cam from, so that article is probably linked to it . I am not revealing the other articles as I'd rather they not be messed with by Latebird and friends. Their lack of geological knowledge has promoted their misuse of terms. I have never had this experience before (aside from some sock puppet experiences). Mattisse18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consultation stuff is usually done on the talk pages, and you seemed aware enough of the recent changes. Of course it does not help when erroneous accusations are thrown around instead of explaining what exactly is wrong with an edit. I think it would really be a good idea to find out how this edit history stuff works, it helps a lot in keeping an article straight. If nothing helps, you can still go to an old version and c&p it. And you can always find an old version (except, as said, when an article is deleted) by looking through the edits you yourself have made in the past. In any case, do not always assume bad faith when someone might just be bold, or when you even may have misunderstood something. Yaan (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read your posts, and my impression was that the edits, mergers and moves that pissed you off were usually not done by latebird. Latebird did rename the Uureg nuur image, but this was entirely justified and actually very necessary (and you even thanked me, though not him, for it). Yaan (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mattisse, I'm not willing to tolerate your entirely baseless accusations any longer. The next time you make clearly incorrect claims (like the last time here), attributing statements and opinions to me that I never made or held, you will be reported for person attacks, uncivility, and violation of any other Wikipedia policy that happens to match the specific situation. What you're doing is systematically coming closer and closer to libel, which is no trivial matter. Please be aware that other editors and especially admins have no problem in checking the relevant edit histories and diffs, and I have no problem in providing them, so that any unsubstianted claims by you are trivial to document. My very long patience with your unjustified but exceedingly hostile behaviour is now over. Please get a grip on reality, provide diffs for anything negative you claim about me, or face the consequences. Thanks for your understanding. --Latebird (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you want. Until you stop your unilateral changing of articles and requesting deletion of images without consulting me, I cannot consider you other that violating wiki policy on consensus. I feel like I have been putting up with your arbitrary behavior on articles I have worked on for a while and on which you suddenly turn up on and disrupt without consensus. Mattisse16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You see, the "unilateral changing of articles" and "disrupt without consensus" bits would be such claims that you need to prove with a diff each (or several), showing the before and after situation. Without that, they're unsubstantiated accusations (a less polite person than me might say: lies).
Btw: "Without consulting you"? Do you happen to WP:OWN an image that someone elseuploaded to the Commons? And in case you really don't understand that: A request for deletion is a formal way to ask other editors what they think about it, hence the exact opposite of acting unilaterally. Not to mention that I reported about that request here for you and other interested editors to see and possibly step in if I should have happened to be mistaken (which, despite your claims to the opposite, wasn't the case). And the image will not be gone, it has already been replaced by a copy with the correct name. --Latebird (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care enough to wade into the history of this unsavory experience. I know that the joy of creating the articles last year and learning about that area of the world is lost for me. As for the image, I did not know it was in the commons. I uploaded it myself from NASA. I had not seen the image before. Mattisse18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The experience only became unsavoury because you chose to ignore the history right from the start. That seems to be a sad pattern here: Don't look at what really happened, but instead just scream murder. And whoever you first noticed around will then forever be the scapegoat in your eyes. Time to get back to reality! --Latebird (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, Mattisse, is: even if information/image is wrong, it is evidence in reliable source, but nobody can correct this mistake without your agreement (you call this consensus). You are acting like article owner. But you are it's editor not less not more. Nobody has no private articles in Wiki, you see. In this question we have a consensus, I hope. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed yesterday by a couple of editors that "my mistakes" have been changed and fixed. So I do not know what you are asking me now. You are the first editor to ask my opinion on the matter and I am confused by this. I do not know how to answer your question. What are you asking my opinion on? You have to be more specific, as there could be up to five articles involved. (Don't know the current state now.) Further, it has been made clear to me that my contributions are not wanted by that group of editors. Mattisse14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you are mistaken about any consensus being required from me. The other changes were make without my consensus, indeed most of the time without any discussion or warning. I would go to an article and find it did not exist anymore because it had been redirected. I cannot see that my consensus is suddenly required now. I believe your perception is mistaken. Mattisse14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation:"You did not ask me, politely or otherwise, to "correct" my mistake. You merely removed the image from the article and put it up for deletion without consulting me." How we can understand this? You could make routine your watchlist checking and notice what happened, isn't it? Your (NASA) image as such is not wrong, but wrong is its tytle, isn't it? You really beleave this is Uvs Nuur? Even if so this image is not Uvs Nuur. Everybody, you, me, even Latebird can post it for deletion. But you want be asked for your agreement? Bogomolov.PL (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have 1,500 pages on my watchlist. I remove as much as I can everyday. Further, I spend most of my time writing and researching articles when I am on Wikipedia. So, no. I do not see everything on the watchlist. And especially images. I never watch for images, as a problem with an image I have uploaded has never come up before in this manner. I have received four or five bot notes over the years regarding copyright status on my talkpage, but that's it. I have never had an image changed without a note to me on my talkpage. I had not a clue about Latebird's underground workings and I am still not clear about it. I am glad the image was not speedy deleted as Latebird requested. I will leave it at that. Mattisse15:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have an answer: when it is copyright problem you can resolve it, but you can not make the image of Üüreg Nuur the image of Uvs Nuur. The first one has to be deleted.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all that was explained to me later, after deletions, after the speedy delete put on the image before any explanation to me, etc. etc. I was operating in a vacuum of information. In any case, those editors have clearly taken over those articles now so the only way I will ever edit one of them again is if I notice that they have incorrectly used a reference I provided. Mattisse16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An other one time: you don't have any special rights to decide the future of this image. It is not your image, but NASA. Your is image uploading and naming. You made a mistake. Everybody - you, me, even Latebird can correct this mistake. You are interested in this image fortune? If so - check your watchlist. You don't have a time? Nobody but you can help yourself. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Now I know that kind of behavior is possible. I doubt I will be uploading any more for the subject area concerning the group of editors under discussion. However, thank you for your advice if I should find myself involved with these sort of editors again. Actually, my preference is to just move on. I did not realize the viciousness of these editors or I would have done so before. No content on Wikipedia is important enough to undergo this type of treatment. They obviously do not want "outsiders" concerned in their area and do not respect an "outsiders" opinion. I know that now and will stay away. Mattisse17:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am an outsider in many many fields. I'm sure a lot of Wiki editors make edits in very different spheres. An what? If your behavior is constructive, you want help to improve the WP - you are welcome. For you may be your position in WP is very important. You can defend your opinion with your arguments - but I see your emotions, not arguments... Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I edit in a vast number of fields and only rarely in my own. I admit my reaction to this incident was emotional. I did not have a clue what was happening when suddenly a multitude of editors began Redirecting, Moving, setting up disambig pages (some of these editors appeared to be warring with each other) and I reacted poorly. I should have just bowed out in the face of such behavior. There are so many areas of the world that I have edited peacefully in for a long time. In the scheme of things this area is not important. I was happy to edit there because the articles are in poor shape and I like cleaning articles up, providing references etc because it is a form of learning about the area. However I am even happier to edit where the atmosphere is calmer and where editors do not require that you speak the native language. In India there were many conflicts over names because of the many languages, religions and ethnic groups there, but somehow the only real trouble was caused by sock puppets and not by editors. I need not trouble you any more. I will stay away from your area. Mattisse18:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"where editors do not require that you speak the native language" - I'm not native English speaker, you see. And Mongolian, and Tuvan. I'm not native speaker in Polish, but I'm editing in Polish WP, German WP, English WP, German WP. Less contributions I've made in my native language - but a lot of wikipedians are translating my edits in their languages... Your edits were translated too, I hope. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)
Truthfully, the issue has never come up. As I mentioned, India had a lot of naming disagreements. Eventually these were worked out, in most cases, with the decision to use the English version of names since this is an English Wikipedia and because these names were popular in search engines. They also made the decision to use World Heritage Site names for World Heritage Sites. I think the openness of India has resulted in the greater number and sophistication of their articles compared to many countries. I have edited articles about countries on almost every continent in the world, South America, Africa, Asia, United States, Caribbean ... and on many subjects and created many articles. In cases where someone disagreed with what I wrote, they did not change it without discussion first. Even many Russian articles, Lake Baikal for example, I worked on with no problems and created many articles related to that article, other lakes, rivers, mountains etc. without this sort of conflict. Perhaps I have just been lucky. Regards, Mattisse18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uvs Nuur case indicates a problem presence: Mongolian and Russian term for the number of orographic/geomorphologic objects are the same, but English translations in WP are basin, depression, hollow and valley. And we need respect official names for the nonorographic objects (natural reserves) even their names differ to orographic/geomorphologic name. This is English language/En:Wiki problem: Mongols and Russians have no problem in this case. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
latebird
I really think it is you who is at fault here, not him. Maybe you need to try to get a bit calm first before striking back, and try to find out who actually did what. Most changes (except article deletions, I think) can be undone rather easily, so maybe if you find out how to do this it might also help in a number of cases. I do not think latebird is against outside editors, in fact he was the one who made me register at WP. There is a problem with inaccuracies and mistakes in Mongolia-related articles (although the situation has improved), and many of these are difficult to sort out, so when we find one that is clear we usually just change it. This is also what is endorsed by WP:BOLD. Yaan (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did undo them. But a variety of editors, friends of Latebird? jumped in again and made all sorts of changes and redirects again with no explanation, or else very cursory ones. (Luckily I had save a copy of the one I cared about in a sandbox). Not one of them was concerned about content -- just the translation of the Russian name. I guess that is the sole concern here. As I said, I will not be contributing any more content, so I guess Latebird and friends will have to do something besides redirecting and renaming if they want content in their articles. You do not think that I, as the creator and sole editor of these articles since last year, did not deserve some consultation before all this was done? None of these other editors have touched these articles until last week or so, although I created them last year. I have had to recreate Ubsunur Hollow twice in the last few days. It was originally created last year sometime, but it's history is lost to me through all the redirects and recreations. Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve is one of its incarnations but it, as was the original article was redirected out of existence until I restored it, really for no reason now, as so many other changes have been made. It is impossible to recreate what happened. And I don't know what happened to the disambig page which someone else made without consultation or consensus giving new names to the articles -- actually that is where Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve cam from, so that article is probably linked to it . I am not revealing the other articles as I'd rather they not be messed with by Latebird and friends. Their lack of geological knowledge has promoted their misuse of terms. I have never had this experience before (aside from some sock puppet experiences). Mattisse18:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The consultation stuff is usually done on the talk pages, and you seemed aware enough of the recent changes. Of course it does not help when erroneous accusations are thrown around instead of explaining what exactly is wrong with an edit. I think it would really be a good idea to find out how this edit history stuff works, it helps a lot in keeping an article straight. If nothing helps, you can still go to an old version and c&p it. And you can always find an old version (except, as said, when an article is deleted) by looking through the edits you yourself have made in the past. In any case, do not always assume bad faith when someone might just be bold, or when you even may have misunderstood something. Yaan (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read your posts, and my impression was that the edits, mergers and moves that pissed you off were usually not done by latebird. Latebird did rename the Uureg nuur image, but this was entirely justified and actually very necessary (and you even thanked me, though not him, for it). Yaan (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you absolutely hate my guts and the mere sight of my wiki signature for daring to allegedly "own" and "destroy" the articles you've created here at Wiki, but I couldn't resist sharing these three pics with you of real Han Dynasty models, in case you wanted to include it in your Ancient Chinese wooden architecture article. It's a bronze tomb model of a house from the ancient Han Dynasty, as well as a clay model, and a pottery tower; notice the tiled roof and the cute little porch on the first one:
I don't absolutely hate your guts. I admire you very much. If it were not for your Song Dynasty article, a whole world would not have been opened to me. I'm sorry that our entanglement ended up the way it did. I am just slower than you. I have to put the pieces together as I am learning. We both went over the edge, I think. (Maybe we are each a little temperamental.) My true apologies to you. Mattisse02:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the article - 'Concept of Death and Adjustment' some editor has tagged some suggestion that can be best executed by you among the wiki editors. See the discussion section of the article, you will see the full comment. I fear that as it is a very young subject, some misunderstanding might destroy it. I believe some improvement in the language has been sought.
Shoovrow (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust your caliber. Just give me the permission that if it is really necessary to preserve the main science of the article, I might change some of your editing. But I hope that will not be necessary. I am just seeking the permission in advance so that no chance of misunderstanding remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoovrow (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can. However, the editor's comment on the talkpage is a valid one, from Wikipedia's point of view. So it would help the article to eliminate some of what that editor is objecting to. Can you save a copy for yourself? Mattisse15:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes my friend. I agree with you. If you are talking about the article, I have the whole thing too much copied in my heart and on my mind. Now a days I have turned to a thanatologist! I cant think f any other research than this. Even, now a days I smell, from the comments of other thanatologist or psychologist, I might have turned to the father of this very small portion of this science. I wish I knew English better!! If you are ever interested in writing, let me know. We might just be a good team for a good scientific book in English.Shoovrow (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 Amigos
With me as the "big picture" guy, Polaris as the "detail" guy, and you as the "proof read" guy ... we have the 3 Amigos of Wikipedia and what I would describe as an effective research unit. Redthoreau (talk TR 16:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I want to invite you to take part in my new book by submitting an essay (300 to 3000 words) with your views on the subject that you are editing now, or my hypotheses or on human mortality or immortality or death. Even the subject can be one that is different from mine but related to it. I will include that essay in my book and publish it. You'll have at least one month to write such. In fact I'm trying to build a community on this subject consisting of mental health personals. You can also write to me by e-mails at hmanjur@bttb.net.bd Shoovrow (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article Size - Che
Also there is no way that the article has doubled in length .... you have to be calculating the size taking into account the pictures, post prose - which should not be considered when weighing the articles size. Where is a link to the supposed size of the article? For my part I feel there is an irrational panic taking place with reference to the article's size that I feel is unnecessary. If anything the total time it takes to scroll down through the article has been DECREASED not increased (try it for yourself). Redthoreau (talk TR 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. Lets get some consensus on it. The article is listed as #24 on Wikipedia's list of the 500 longest articles. We need to get more people involved and see how they feel. Mattisse17:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The prose of the article is only 69 KB or so (now probably smaller) - size is not the issue. Those lists are deceptive because they take into account all material post-prose - much of which I have edited out now. Also I trust you to make revisions on prose content so feel free. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Slim harpo album.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
