User talk:Mattisse/Archive 15

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_14) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_16)

I'm back

Mattisse, I'm back to internet. How is everything going on? I saw that the articles are the same as they were before. What about the ground work, I mean could you read the wow portion of your talk page? I think, with due respect to your process, as you are working on many things and also my articles are a bit critical, its best if you take some time together and complete the editing. Otherwise you will loose links to your thought again and again, and it will increase your hardship. I am really sorry that I have none but you to utilize this way at wiki. Forgive me for being such a continuous load. I wish I had more friends like you at wiki!Shoovrow (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, I don't quite understand it which makes editing hard. Also, would it be alright to reduce the size some? It is very very long. First I have to make it understandable to me! Mattisse (Talk) 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have given the complete responsibility to you, do what you fell. If needed, to preserve the scientific pattern, then I might do some editing after you are complete. But you are free to do as you feel.Shoovrow (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agitation (emotion)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Agitation (emotion), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please retract or justify accusations

Please comment on content and not on editors. O.K. you can revert and put the incorrect material back in the article but you cannot remove a tag unilaterally and arbitrarily. Thanks, Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Redthoreau the only editor who reverts what others contribute to the article? What is the point of FAR if this article is not to be improved? Why is inaccurate information allowed to remain? Somebody please explain to me what the rules are regarding this article. Thanks, Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You still have yet to show how my information was inaccurate, or incorrect, despite the fact that I repeatedly have requested it ??? Redthoreau (talk TR 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Hi, Mattisse. I'm working on submitting some DYK's for WikiProject Hawaii, but I'm sort of a newbie at this. Can you recommend any tips or things to avoid? I should probably mention that none of the articles I'm working on expanding are "new"; they are all short stubs that have been around for a while. —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can help you. I would like to work on some Hawaiian articles. I noticed some interesting articles on Hawaii just recently, plus I am going to Hawaii in two weeks. Where are the stud articles you are talking about? Most of my DKY's I start from scratch and I just wrote an article on something I was interested in. But I would certainly be willing to help you. The key is the hook. Write an article that has a good hook! Mattisse (Talk) 11:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we would love your help! Thanks for the tip. Can you recommend any really good hooks you wrote that I could read? If you want to consider expanding a Hawaii stub, there are two stub categories we are actively expanding. The current article improvement drive is focusing on just 12 stubs for DYK submissions (which you are welcome to work on at anytime) but you may find something far more interesting looking through the ~600 articles in Category:Hawaii stubs. Of course, you are always welcome to join WP:HAWAII. —Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to leave right now. But if you read the DYK's and then look at the article it comes from, you can see how it works. Just focus somewhere in the article you are writing on an interesting fact and make sure that the fact is cited, even if the article lacks some citations elsewhere. I will look through the stubs later today. (As far as my hooks, on my user page there is a section called DYK and under that is a list to my DYK's.) Mattisse (Talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subcats

Rape is a subcat of sexual abuse, which is a subcat of sex crimes; so rape should be removed from the parent category (sex crimes), not from sexual abuse. I think you have been doing things the wrong way round, which spreads confusion. (In this diff you've removed the wrong category.) Occuli (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters sex crimes and sexual abuse are not the same thing. Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

This is the only warning you will receive. If you continue with your great edits you will be given a barnstar —Viriditas | Talk 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some help

Mattisse, I believe I can simplify some aspects of the first article "concept of death and adjustment" for you. First, we need to adjust with death for a healthier life. Primarily this article represents the concept that we need adjustment with death and also it elaborates every possible aspects of the necessity of adjustment - researches, history and scientific inferences. Secondarily, just think, depending on scientific information, religious preachings, and personal beliefs we have different kinds of conception about death. Researches showed that adjustment with the very hard truth - 'death' is variable in different times [like Philippe Aries said], in different stages of life [like Kubler Ross and I myself said ], in case of different conceptions we have about death [that my researches show]. Example of the last variation is - one who follows Islam or Christianity believes that we die but don't end. Their adjustment with death will differ with that of non believer just because their concept about death is different. So first issue is we need adjustment and the second and ultimate issue is concept of death is related to this adjustment. Is it clear now why the article is "concept of death and adjustment"? To make the issue clearly understandable, I have included the historical and theoretical descriptions of maladjustment with death. Let me know if it helps you.Shoovrow (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Psychological Association says that people with religious beliefs adjust better than nonreligious people to growing older and to idea that they are going to die. To me this makes sense, as people that believe that "they" will not end at death are more likely to accept death than those who believe that death is the end. Mattisse (Talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

I need to email you. Mattisse (Talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important note

Mattisse, My friend, for a long time both of us are trying to proceed with the articles and we aren't done with the first complete editing. I am just trying to complete a single edit, at least, by you so that no English spoken person can complain about its presentation due to my poor language quality.

Since you have multiple short durations of time free for wiki, we need to have a plan if we want to finish at least the language and presentation quality editing. But I think, with all respect for you, we do not have any plan that can assure its completion within a definite period of time before anyone scratches it. I spent the whole of 2007 just for these two wiki articles, I mean, I made and waited for the back up materials that were suggested by most of the wiki editors - Publishing of reference book, establishment of the book at US and International university libraries, Publishing of scientific journal articles, publishing mental health magazine articles everything.

After such an effort of more than a year I am very much afraid to see someone scratching the articles before we get any chance to edit them at least once. I hope you understand my reason of insecurity and urgency. Will you please tell me any plan or make any so that we can complete the first editing before its too late! After that if it is scratched by many, I will at least feel satisfied that it is being reconstructed after a standard construction effort.

Now a days I am turning to some robot, some close friends of mine are consoling me that I am under too much stress and everything will be fine when the stress is over. But believe me, wiki is one of the most profound continuous stress for me. I have all my regards for you just like I had from the beginning.Shoovrow (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not any sort of expert, but can I be of any help to the two of you, to work on this article? Remember wiki readers only need a summary of what's been said about the subject, so it needn't be a thesis or anything.special, random, Merkinsmum 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to get more clarification and I am asking Shoovrow to email me. Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concept of death and adjustment

we hit an edit conflict- I was in the edit window for ages lol, mainly copyediting, please take a look at my efforts and see what you think still needs changing.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses

Mattisse, as you have the hypotheses book and also the review report in the archive of your talk page under the Wow heading, it should be very easy for you to edit the second article Death and adjustment Hypotheses. I know you are very busy, but only you have the fullest materials to edit it. And also this time you will need to write just what you see in the hypotheses [book] , in this work the review report can help too. No brain work like the first article is needed. Let me know.Shoovrow (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opaeka'a Falls

Good work! Have you taken a look at any longer, more developed waterfall articles? That might give you some more ideas for expansion. Sorry, I can't be of any more help right now. I'm typing this from my cell phone because the power is out in South Maui (and other parts of the island) due to high winds, which may have knocked down a power line. Hopefully, I'll be back online tonight. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the power is back on, so I will see if I can make any suggestions. Looks like you are doing just fine! —Viriditas | Talk 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a source on Google books has commented about the actual shrimp species. I'll see if I can dig something up. That would be a great addition to the article! I wonder if it was a native shrimp? —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm still looking into it, but it appears to be a Halocaridina. Haven't confirmed this just yet. The Hawaiian name appears to be ʻōpaeʻula. A travel website says that the shrimp is native and that they are still found in the pools below the waterfall and that when they lay their eggs, it turns the color of the pools and the waterfall, red. Still searching for more info, but that would work really well in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out it must be a completely different species, as there are apparently no Halocaridina on Kauai. —Viriditas | Talk 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only shrimp species I can find in the vicinity of Opaeka'a Falls is Atyoida bisulcata, which are known for the ability to climb waterfalls. —Viriditas | Talk 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could get any reference regarding the shrimp, that would be great. The article right now is at 4700 kbs. Mattisse (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be able to find you something tomorrow morning. I'm going to get back to work on the plant article right now. I think you'll make the 5x no problem. Either way, I'll have something for you in the next 24 hours if you don't have enough content. —Viriditas | Talk 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything on the "ancient temple of Holoholoku Neiau"? I just have a reference to a mention of it as being nearby. Might be able to stick that in under a Nearby attractions section or something.

Sorry, I just spent the last hour trying to sync my Zotero database on two machines so I can work offline on my laptop. I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on this. Keep up the great work. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just uninstalled Zotero because I could not figure out how to use it! Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. It is big enough I think. Now to search for a hook. Since Hawaii is hardly ever meantioned in DYKs (from what I have noticed) they will be prone to select it for that reason with a good hook. Mattisse (Talk) 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted it on DYK with an alt hook. Maybe you can think of a better one. Mattisse (Talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it looks great, but my personal preference would be to remove (rolling shrimp in Hawaiian) as it breaks up the flow, but that's just me. Maybe they like that kind of thing on DYK? I have no idea. BTW, I moved the mountain article to the correct spelling. You might want to correct the sp. in the waterfall article, too. Thanks for showing me how to do the DYK by example. You're a good teacher. :) —Viriditas | Talk 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean remove it in the article or the DYK? Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the DYK, but that's just my opinion. Maybe they prefer that kind of thing there. —Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since MPerel and I have been working on expanding the Hawaiian plant article since the first, if I submit a DYK at some point today (after some more expansion), do I enter it under April 3? And, would it be better if I added an image or two, or does that not matter for DYK? —Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I puzzled over that myself and opted for the earlier date as a precaution. You can always add on to an article after its in DYK. And yes, they love pictures. The picture has to be relevant to the article and a PD—no fair use images for the main page. And the hook, what ever you use, has to have a reference citation in the article. They don't want any unreferenced material on the main page. Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, put the DYK page on your watchlist when you enter it. Sometimes they ask you a question under the entry, like does this have a reference, or isn't there something more interesting you can say (they like wacko type factoids), or can you shorten the entry (they have a max of 300 bytes for the hook? Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. —Viriditas | Talk 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know which date to place it under. It's been under expansion from April 1-4. —Viriditas | Talk 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you entered it today, and counted back five days, it would only be a 2 1/2 fold increase if my math is correct. Find a span (the DYK people are working on March 30/31 now so a span after that) that includes a five-fold increase. Or near to a five-fold increase. You clearly have the five-fold increase now. So pick find a span (between April 1 and now) where you have made great strides toward the five-fold increase without necessarily reaching by that date. The span must be between April 1 and now. (They might let you slip under the door if is was March 31 - but I don't know - depends on how hard up they are for entries.) If it is posted for a few days it gets vetted and suggestions may be made regarding the hook, etc. Mattisse (Talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it under April 1st. If you think it should be somewhere else, or if you think it needs to be changed in any way, please do so. I'm going to bed now. :) —Viriditas | Talk 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your "indigenous" to "endemic". It's an important distinction. :) —Viriditas | Talk 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I realized I was in over my head once I started really looks at those articles. What the distinction, plant-wise? Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous means native to a place, but doesn't exclude the species appearing in multiple places. Endemic means it is only native to one, unique location. Endemic species are common on islands due to their geographical isolation. The Galápagos Islands are one famous example. —Viriditas | Talk 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is problematic to refer to the plant as pigweed because that could be one of three different plants, one of which happens to be Portulaca oleracea, one of its greatest enemies on Nihoa! —Viriditas | Talk 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you're very good at this! :) I wish you would join WP:HAWAII. We need you. —Viriditas | Talk 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to. I've been looking through the Hawaii stubs but it is hard to find any information to enlarge them with. Most of them already have the easy-to-find info. Through my wikipedia projects I have books on Indian and Chinese architecture, the Cuban revolution etc., I would have to get a source of information on Hawaii. My one book on Hawaii I got whan I was there. I am going again in two weeks. Maybe I'll make an issue of finding something there! Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I've been thinking of putting together a resources page for editors doing research on Hawaii-related articles, and providing links to good, online resources. Would you find that helpful? Also, I've thought about sorting it by topic. When you were looking through the stubs to expand, would it have helped first if you had been given a list of topics rather than names? —Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be wonderful to have sources. The Hawaiian name thing is very difficult, but by topic—how would that work? I guess I get interested in topics, like architecture, geology, archeology, etc. By the way, what would you prefer to pigweed? I was just trying to get the DYK's attention, like with the rolling shrimp. A hook is a hook. They don't care if it has little to do with the article, expect if pigweed is wrong then you should change it. Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have an idea of how to provide sources and topics to help editors improve Hawaii-related articles. Maybe you will be my guinea pig? :) The term pigweed is ambiguous; yes many web sources call Brown's amaranth "pigweed", and I don't know if it is correct or not, but the last dispatch from the USFWS maintains that it has no common name, and one of its main competitors is in fact, known as a "pigweed". Since there are at least three types of plants that can be called pigweed, it's hard to say who is right and who is wrong, which is why I just went with amaranth! :) —Viriditas | Talk 00:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigweed is a little more user friendly Latin plant names, for the DKY. Probably if it gets on the main page you get a note from someone or some editor will changed, with an adit summary reflecting his superior state of knowledge. Thanks for the Barnstar. It's much appreciated! By the way, I forgot to mention that I am interested in brdiges, dams, reservoirs and irrigation systme. I nearly started working an an article about a ditch, but my eyes gave out on the Google book. Also, the subject became more complicated because an isolated ditch is nothing if not part of a system and the history of sugar cane, etc. Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That got saved accidentally, with no edit summary so I will thank you properly for the Barnstar! Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you are interested in bridges, dams, reservoirs, and irrigation systems, you're in luck. There is a lot of material on that subject because of the amount of land used in Hawaii for agriculture. In fact, if you do any research on Hawaii history at all, it would be impossible for you to ignore it! This is especially true if you are studying Sugar plantations in Hawaii. I think you will really be interested in Ka Loko Reservoir, as it is still a stub, and there is tons of good information about it in the news archives! —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Che Guevara article

Greetings, Mattisse. I hope you're not angry at me. I don't know whether you saw my message to you at User talk:Coppertwig#Message for Mattisse. I would really appreciate it if you would take the time to let me know how you're feeling about the situation. I hope you're planning to continue editing the article -- you've contributed a lot already and your continued paticipation will help produce the best possible article. I've asked a couple of questions at Talk:Che Guevara: do you have the book by Gleijeses, Conflicting Missions? Is it OK with you if I reformat the references, basically the way SandyGeorgia was explaining? etc. Looking forward to hearing from you. Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read through your message and, frankly, it was just more of the same. I'm not willing to work on the article anymore. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of that. I've struck out my message. Would you be willing to try talking over the situation with me? --Coppertwig (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, What more is there to say? Mattisse (Talk) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my message came across as a negative one. I hope that good relations can be established among you, me and Redthoreau so that we can all edit the article without feeling that we're being attacked. If we can't seem to establish good relations on our own I wonder whether you would be willing to consider participating in a request for mediation. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Plumeria Award

		The Aloha Plumeria
		I, Viriditas, award Mattisse the Aloha Plumeria Award for helping the Hawaii WikiProject research, expand, and improve articles. —Viriditas \| Talk 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse talk should not be archived

(This was mistakenly placed at the front during an edit overlap.)

By chance, I came across a peculiar article created by, you, Mattisse. It did not appear to have a grasp on the subject, but apparently was extracted from an obscure book you'd read. On a whim, I decided to look at your previous submissions (something I rarely do), and discovered you have created many articles which display no special knowledge of subject. (For example, a cave which you have obviously not been in, but which I have. For example, a discussion of electrical theory which indicates you know little, but, as it happens, is an area where I used to deal with experts.)

I'm really quite far from wanting to enter into the politics of how useful Wiki articles and stubs are formed. However, after reading the reaction from several Wiki editors here, I have a straightforward request: I would like you to be accountable for your edits, and I would like to see the comments of other editors older than 14 days. Therefore, I request that these stop being archived.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not archiving my talk pages is not the way to go. In three weeks my talk page would be so large that my browser would crash trying to assess it. My collective talk pages are thousands and thousand of kilobytes of mostly boring stuff. If you have specific complaints about me then make those complaints. My edits are available, just as everyones are, under my contributions. Editors who have specific complaints about articles can tag those articles and register the complaint on the article talk page. What ever I have contributed to articles, I do not own them. You are free to make changes as long as they referenced per WP:V. Articles cannot be based on personal experience. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you make so many edits, you need to provide a convenient method to review them. A page several times as large as this talk page would cause no problem, even for a dial-up user.

Your specific edits are not what this talk page is always about. This page is for community discussions regarding the nature of your edits, as well. As such, there is no justification for them to be archived whatsoever.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had to lower the size before archiving recently as my browser could not access it without getting script messages. Many people just delete every message from their talk page as soon as they read it and have no archives. The talk page is not for review of edits in the manner you suggest. The article talk pages are for that. Maybe I will start just deleting every message I want. I usually leave them there no matter how obnoxious, but I am not required to do so. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are required to do is be responsible to the Wiki community. Wouldn't you agree? If you find yourself in an unusual technical situation where you are unable to display large pages, as you suggest, then perhaps you should find a technical solution, rather than claiming you are exempt from review.

The article talk pages are unsuited for a systematic problem with an editor's contributions. Reviewing your contributions, it appears that you have a penchant for adding new material from dozens of different fields, from a single or few a sources, without having any particular understanding or appreciation of other sources. Then, when someone questions it, you resort to intimidation, for example by explaining that you have 44 K edits. I think the community would like to understand why your technical situation and your number of edits exclude your contributions from evaluation -- as a whole.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. If you think it is a problem for Wikipedia, seek opinions about it through their may ways of dealing with conflicts between editiors. Look under help. There is dispute resolution, mediation, request for comment and arbitration. Please do not post on my talk page anymore. Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have just refused arbitration from Coppertwig, above, why would I proceed along those lines?

You still have yet to explain why you cannot leave your talk page unarchived.

Apparently there are pages and pages of complaints about you. Is Wiki unable to deal with this? Many obvious infractions? Covering up evidence of wrongdoing? Intimidating editors?

24.130.14.173 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.130.14.173: You are aware that you can review Mattisse's talk page archives by clicking on the links 1 through 14 at the top of this page, right? Talk page archiving is a common technical practice here, and is independent of any comment-hiding action. –Pomte 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Law (Star Trek: Voyager)

thanks for editing this page; you appear to have edited a tag claiming "The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article". Since the article is about an episode of a television series, surely it should be EXPECTED to be the main focus. i've left the tag, if you can explain your reasoning i'll shush about it. thanks! Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing for you to do to get an idea of how to write an aricle on fiction is read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Overall the messages is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be encyclopedic in nature. Specifically, plot summaries are discussed here WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Personal Autobiographies

Category:Personal Autobiographies, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pigweed

Heheheh...thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Coconut Island would be a very easy DYK if you are interested. There's loads of info about it online. It's also very interesting across the board, from history to science. Take a look, it might be something you would enjoy. —Viriditas | Talk 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'll give it a try. –Mattisse (Talk) 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions as to sources? It's already over 2000, so I would have to add at least 8,000, and glancing at the online stuff, it seems most of it is already in the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by looking at Kāne'ohe Bay. That will give you some perspective of how to lead-in, as the island is the largest of five within the bay. That article also provide some tips on geology: Coconut Island is an isolated volcanic remnant located in the southwest part of the bay. I'm sure the USGS has something on this, but I haven't found it yet. The secret of doing research on niche topics like this is not to directly search for information about the main topic, but to search by subtopic. You can find a lot of info this way. But to search for these subtopics, you need to pull them out of the general info links first: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] So, if you start with Christian Holmes, you get Christiaan Klieger's The Fleischmann Yeast Family as a source on GBooks - with info about Holmes and Coconut Island. And if you keep doing this for every subtopic, you get more and more sources. Try Edwin W. Pauley and you get this and many more. Keep doing that for every subtopic and you'll have enough material. The only issue is the early Hawaiian and geological history, which you may have to get directly from print material, which I may be able to find for you by Monday. —Viriditas | Talk 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this message now. Do not know why I did not see it before. Maybe I thought it was MizaBotIII. I will examine it more closely tommorrow. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology

That was very sharp of you to start working on the subtopic instead; You have good instincts. Now, instead of one DYK, you will probably turn it into five! As for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, no, the institute is not located there, but they do study species that are endemic to it, and they probably have a habitat setup to reproduce some aspects of it, hence the confusion. To read more about where the institute is located, see Oahu. Also, you can see the name of the island in their logo (Coconut Island, Oahu).—Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands article explains which islands are covered by the designation. —Viriditas | Talk 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology

Hi Mattisse,

Great job on Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology!

One possible improvement would be a picture, especially if it is like the stunning image on HIMB's homepage. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:47 2008 April 7 (UTC)

Yes, that would be wonderful. But what is the status of the picture. Is it PD? –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usually what I do, though, is contact the organization to ask if the picture is more liberally licensed. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:05 2008 April 7 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a good one (Creative Commons BY-ND, too). Just a few minutes... « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:12 2008 April 7 (UTC)

Great! That is wonderful of you. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. :(

I can't upload ND works!

Here is a link to the page with the image: http://www.coralite.net/himb.html . Maybe there is a way...

« D. Trebbien (talk) 01:16 2008 April 7 (UTC)

Saudade article

Not to step on your toes, but I think we should work with the saudade article more subtly. It does seem to involve OR, but it's also a decent article, rather than a passel of falsehoods. I think we can get it sourced and otherwise verified without so many tags. Mr. IP (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have offended you. I am just so horrified when I see an article like that as wikpeida presents itself to the world as reliable and referenced that I am sorry if I over did it. That method of tagging has worked remarkably well with a great many articles (some which I thought were hopeless!). Many editors do not know that WP:V is policy and that any unsourced material can be removed by any editor at any time. So editors become quite motivated to fix it.

Did you know that it against the guidelines to remove tags without fixing the Problem? You should also remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has a duty to warn general readers of possible inaccuracies. It is very important to be responsible regarding this. It is wikipedia's article and wikipedia's credibility rests on being honest about article quality.

Especially the OR and at least some general notice that the article is largely unreferenced and unverified is in order. If you do not replace at least some of the tags then I will have to. Please be a responsible wikipedia editor. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 12:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to remove all tags from this article - I'm noting that a blanket template on the article itself is less disruptive than tagging every paragraph. What does "Please be a responsible wikipedia editor" mean? Am I reading that the wrong way? Are you implying that I acted irresponsibly by disagreeing with you? That a dispute over which or how many tags are appropriate is equivalent to removing tags without fixing the article? Why assume bad faith? Mr. IP (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Hawaii Stub expansion and DYK coordinator

Mattisse, please consider my earlier offer of joining the Hawaii WikiProject. We really need an editor like yourself to help the project expand stubs and submit DYK's. Additionally, we have a watchlist which would enable you to watch these articles for vandalism, oversee stub expansions by other editors, help or encourage them to submit DYK's, and invite new editors to the project. We would even like you to write a little bit about how to write a good DYK for the newsletter. I think with your help, and perhaps a team of editors working with you, we could cut the stubs down from 600 to 300 in a matter of six months. If I created a subpage in the project for this use, you could even make recommendations to us as to which stubs you feel we should spend our time on, and which you think would be best nominated for deletion or handed over to other projects. Basically, I would like you to lead a team on this. Don't worry about having all the resources or information available. I'm going to make an effort to add a resource page to the project for that very purpose. Please think about it; We really need your help. —Viriditas | Talk 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I would like to join. Just don't expect too much of me. I don't have control of my time often plus my brain gets fried. I just got a DYK on 'Opaeka'a Falls so that is two DYK's in a row for Hawaii! Also, I nominated Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology on April 6. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I have no expectations; please work at your own pace. What I hope to do is put a team together, so that if either one of you needs help with anything, we can all depend on each other. But, I must admit, I don't think we will ever find anyone like you. I'm surprised at how fast you work. What's your secret? —Viriditas | Talk 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 'Opaeka'a Falls, 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.

-- Thanks for your contributions! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MD article

I was under the impression that because of our turbulent history, that you were going to go your own separate way. Considering all of the issues we have had recently, are you sure that there isn't anything else you wouldn't rather be doing, which would be more enjoyable and helpful for the both of us. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia to edit, and yet you coincidentally still decide to insert yourself into the 2 or 3 I begin editing to devote time to, knowing that in the past are personalities clash into intractable conflict. Why would you want to purposely "entangle" us into a quarrel which you have repeatedly stated you no longer want to partake in. You have every right to edit whatever you want, that isn’t the issue, the issue is whether your motivations are in good faith, considering our past. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC) {edit conflict)[reply]

I was working on the category Autobiographies and came across it sorting them. Unfortunaely, the article is categorized in such a way then it ends up there. As I sort I put tags on article as needed. Really I would rather not get involved with you, but I also cannot let an egregious violatiom of Wikepedia standards go unchecked. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt this claim, as you and I personally have quarreled over the films article for the book. Just admit it, you enjoy causing me frustration, and this is not what Wikipedia is about. The article has not been tagged for weeks/months in that state, and all of the sudden, the same person who has been edit warring with me for weeks, and been warned not to tag to harass, shows up with a barrage of tags and acts in an aggressive tone per usual. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me and the articles I work on with a barrage of tags in order to create frustration. Tags or criticisms from you are not in good faith, as our long and quarreling history shows. If this continues I will be forced to report you. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get some outside opinions on this article. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about you finding one of your editor friends to agree with you either. How about lets get some separation, as we had the past few days which worked great for both of us. The probability of you stumbling upon the 2-3 articles I am working on, a few days after we have been warring for months is suspect. Please go your own way, to prevent us from having future edit wars, like in the past. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent}Reply to "I highly doubt this claim" If you look at my edit history for the last several hours you will see that was what I was indeed doing. Otherwsie, I would not have come across the article. Please assume good faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I ? You have made false accusations about me, which still go unanswered, and we have been at "edit war" for weeks ... I have extended an olive branch several times and been rebuked. It is not enough to hide behind the veil of "good faith" now, as you attempt to reignite and instigate our dorment conflict. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same way I have to assume good faith with you. I feel that I have been treated very badly by you and have been driven away from editing the Che Guevara article. and it is very hard to do now, when you have already started the personal attacks in you edit summary. If you do not cooperate in fixing the article I will seek outside help with this issue, as the violation, IMO, is egregious. Please assume good faith, regardless of our editing history. Also please do not used edit summaries to make personal attack –Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Once again, this is how our problems start, because you fail to recognize the proper account of events. You made attacks on me first in the edit summaries by declaring I was "glorifying" him and the article was all "my opinion" etc.

this article is Original Research - it presents the editors view only & any reverences are not neutral - article is written only to glorify subject of article 18:05, 7 April 2008 Mattisse

Even veiling it as "one editor". The only thing egregious here is your behavior, and the amazing fact that after several days of peace, you are beginning to cause more conflict. You have treated me very badly for weeks ... I get along very well with all other editors I am working with right now ... the only problem comes with you, as you only act in bad faith, over, and over again. You never "assume good faith" with me ... and it showed by you declaring me creating a "glorifying" article. While I did show good faith, by addressing your "would" suggestion. Your mis-recollection of events even within the last hour is truly astonishing. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, instead of acting properly and messaging me expressing your view that the article was too "praise worthy", you automatically assume BAD FAITH and assume that I am purposely trying to GLORIFY Guevara, instead of assuming I may have a different view than you. instead of wanting to discuss on the talk page ... (especially considering our history) you resort to a barrage of tags meant to annoy. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

There is peace if I do not edit the articles you consider yours. I was editing on Che Guevara long before you arrived on the scene in November of 2007. You do not WP:OWN articles on Che Guevara. I would edit this article before you came, why can I not now? –Mattisse (Talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had never edited this article before ... and had been editing articles on Hawaii for the past several days. Then all of the sudden as we had peace, you discover an article I have been working on, and instead of talking on the talk page, you start with a barrage of tags and attack me in the edit summary. Look at how harmoniously me and Coppertwig have worked on the CG article now that you have left. My problem is not with any editors ... it is with your behavior and bad faith actions. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{edit conflict} You apparently have been following me around. I did not know you were currently editing the Motorcycle Diaries, as frankly, I have not been paying attention to what you do. Anyway, regardless of where I have been editing, I still am permitted to edit Che Guevara article. Where do you get the idea that I am not? –Mattisse (Talk) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets work on the article following the proper guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (books). How the editors feel about the subject of an article should not be apparent to the reader. Lets make this article that way. Also, long plot descriptions are heavily discouraged by wikipedia. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed you around at all, realizing that per your usual behavior that you would seek out admins to misrepresent your case to (which you did again), I clicked on Contribs and saw that you have been making dozens of Hawaii themed edits. I never said you WERE NOT allowed to edit the article ... I claimed that you were acting in bad faith and to annoy. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict}

It is considered a personal attack to accuse someone of bad faith. Please assume good faith. Your assumptions are only worsening the situation. Please assume good faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#another_use_of_POV_tags_and_other = There you have it. I expect you to cease your abusive use of article tags without justification, so that reporting you will not be necessary. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict}

It is considered a personal attack to accuse someone of bad faith. Please assume good faith. Your assumptions are only worsening the situation. Please assume good faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack to describe bad faith as so. The only time you show good faith, is when you repeat the word over and over lately (to cover yourself). However your actions have been deplorable for weeks in relation to me, so forgive my skepticism. I see better than I hear. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump - they gave some good suggestions

Those were good suggestions they gave at the village pump about The Motorcycle Diaries. Lets follow them. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

another good suggestion: please stop making comments about the other editor's motivations to make an edit. Just argue your point basing yourself on hard facts and don't get involved on personal discussions, please --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a strong suggestion: the book has reviews from The Telegraph and NYT, so please stop at once doubting its notability. The books is *clearly* notable by Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria, in concrete:

3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.

5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.

So stop doubting the notability and stop citing this guideline for backing your doubts, or I will assume that you are trying to make a WP:POINT for some reason, and I'll just go ahead and report you to WP:ETIQUETTE or the adequate place for this sort of reporting, understood?. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Soulstirrers.Cooke.cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Soulstirrers.Cooke.cover.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).

Redthoreau, please stop harassing my on my talk page. I am asking you for the third times. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with dispute template policy

Wikipedia:Dispute templates They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form in a separate section which includes the template name. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

Redthoreau (talk TR 21:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I went to the page above as you suggested. So I will use inline templates after this. It still does not say you can revert minutes later or be rude and accuse the other of bad faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also maybe you should read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Wikipedia:Gaming the system Redthoreau (talk TR 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hope that very positive word is a sign that the above dispute is ending. Mattisse, I'm sorry that I didn't reply earlier to certain messages from Redthoreau to you on my talk page. I wasn't sure how to respond, then got distracted. I should probably have responded immediately. In any case, I've just now posted a message on my talk page addressed to Redthoreau, partly in reply to those messages, which you might be interested in looking at. Note that I've apologized to you for over-reacting previously and I hope I've avoided over-reacting this time; I'm sorry if it seems to you like an under-reaction. :-) I hope my message doesn't make things worse. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will only end if I cease editing the articles in question. I stopped Che Guevars. Now it is a question if I will be driven from a second article. The only thing that has changed is that one editor, doncram, came to my defense. But it will not be worth it to him, I'm sure, to stand up to Redthoreau. No one has so far, so I don't expect any change. In fact I expect an ugly post from him to appear right under this one. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having to stop editing the articles would be unjust. I hope there's another way it can end. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Wikipedia is about justice. I was hoping that it was about being a good encyclopedia but domination always win in the end. I was persoally attacked all afternoon with no response from the "big guys". (Not that it was expected as I know wikipedia.) In the few days I stopped editing Che Guevara I got a Barnstar, a DYK with at least one other on the way and an invitation to join a project because they like my work and think I would be a tremendous asset! Imagine that! –Mattisse (Talk) 01:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Wikipedia may or may not be about justice, but it's supposed to be about NPOV, and having people with different POV's editing the same article is the best way to achieve that. We Wikipedians need to learn to get along with people who have different POV's, different personality types, different ideas about how to interact, etc. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask. What are you congrattlating me for? Is it because I still am not able to edit one of Redthorou's articles? Or is it because he did not swoop in and put an ugly comment under my posting as I predicted he would above? I don't understand your way of thinking. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe he was being nice and congratulating you on the Barn Star you mentioned. Assume Good Faith remember? ;o) Redthoreau (talk TR 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent) I knew you would turn up. I feel invaded. If Coppertwig had been being nice, than now you have certainly ruined it as Coppertwig almost certainly knew you would, as you are so predictable. You know, after a while it does cross over to harassing someone. If I cannot comment anywhere—on my own talk page, Coppertwig's, other editors, any admin I go to, even at the village pump, anything that has remotely to do with you, you are beginning to cross the line. I cannot get help with my problems as I have no privacy with you continual stalking. Give me some freedom from your constant harassment on my own talk page at least. I have asked you before, but I asking you again please do not post on my talk page anymore. Thanks, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to "appear" anytime you mention my name. If you do not want me to "appear" = then desist from talking about me ... it's that simple. Every editor has the right to defend themselves against their accuser. If you stopped making false accusations about me, then I could stop posting my defense. As for "ruining" it ... your paranoia ruined it, as you took a nice compliment by a fellow editor (who has always been kind and fair to you) and once again accused him of making an insult. Because I know Coppertwig is a good person, I am sure he will show up and needlessly "apologize" for your misunderstanding ... as he usually does when you "get upset" over something that only occurs in your own mind. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Others mention your name, especially you friend Coppertwig. Therfore, I will tell him to not post your name on my page again. PLease do not continue to post on my page. Your two last remarks were trivial and seem to be meant to harass me. That is certainly the way I experience them. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned my name Let's review:

I'm sure, to stand up to Redthoreau. No one has so far, so I don't expect any change. In fact I expect an ugly post from him to appear right under this one. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

= accept personal responsibility for your actions, and have a nice day. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atyoida bisulcata

If you want to turn that red link in 'Opaeka'a Falls‎ blue, there's Mountain shrimp (Opaekala'ole). Here's the taxo data: [6] :) —Viriditas | Talk 10:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm keeping track of the DYK, so I'll add it to the newsletter page. Good job! —Viriditas | Talk 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have news on the Portal there, but we need more news articles on Wikinews. Most of the news is pretty old. Is that what you mean? —Viriditas | Talk 00:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to do that. I did that for the Cuban portal for a while but it {the protal) fell apart after the major coordinator left. The people I know there don't seem to know much about Hawaii in the sense of current events. Maybe while I there, I'll pick up wome local news. It seems there are many active issues there. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's amazing you would do that! Have you ever worked on Wikinews before? The Hawaii news portal can be found here. Do you know which island(s) you will be visiting? —Viriditas | Talk 01:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse the accuser

Please do not use edit summaries to make false personal attacks. I have never harassed you, and this is not the way to deal maturely with the fallout from your poor behavior. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, please stop harassing my on my user page. I am asking you for the thrid thime to please stop this harassment. Please. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never and will never harass you. I am allowed to request that you not use edit summaries to make attacks against me, and then close your talk page. For the 10th + Time .. please stop casting aspersions against me ... so that I can stop having to defend myself. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are harassing me by continuing to post on my page. Coppertwig told another editor who was doing the same thing, that the page's editor opinion should be followed there is no reason for you to continue this. Go away. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Black autobiographies

dyk

An hour late but nevertheless

On 9 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology, 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.

--Victuallers (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

Hey, Mattisse. Thanks for all your hard work. You're doing a tremendous job. Regarding the latest DYK, I wonder what you would think if we modified it somewhat. Hawaii law makes it illegal to come closer than 100 yards to a humpback whale, so saying that "a person can snorkel with" them could be problematic. This is especially true because the whales are visiting Hawaii to give birth, and we do not want to encourage snorkelers to break the law or interfere with calving. This has already happened with the dolphin population in Maui. Do you think we should modify the article and this statement to reflect the law? Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just went to verify the statement "divers can snorkel with them" and couldn't find it in the reference given. Do you have another one? Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a summary of the official rules where it clearly states "do not...swim with...humpback whales..." So what I will do is remove the info from the article and submit a new DYK. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've resubmitted the DYK under your name. Please go ahead and make any changes or just rewrite it. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part were you concerned about copyvio? The source was stating facts and figures directly from NOAA. You can't really rewrite or rephrase geographic and statistical terms, such as "two-thirds" and "North Pacific". Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coconut Island II

I recommended starting with Kāne'ohe Bay, and exploring the subtopics like these: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] [12]. The best printed source on coconut island is the book, Klieger, P. Christiaan; Helfrich, Philip; Leong, Jo-Ann C. (2007), Moku o Lo`e: A History of Coconut Island, Honolulu, Hawai'i: Bishop Museum Press, ISBN 1581780729. No worries, as this is a lot of work. I see you are already getting into it with new stubs! Wow! But, if it is something you want to pursue, you can always use the {{findsources}} template to help. I'll place it on Talk:Coconut Island if you need it. Just go there and click on the search terms to find more material. Have a great day! Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is great as I am a little lost when it comes to Hawaii. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of Craters Road

I love the image you added (Image:P2200054 h.jpg) but I don't see what it has to do with the article. Having seen that lava flow, it's nowhere near the road. You have to hike down to the lava tube about 1-2 miles. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could leave it in and just say that you have to hike X distance from the end of the road to see active lava (you can find sources on that), but we should probably find images on the road itself. I think I see what you are trying to say, though. Surface flows from Kupaianaha (like the one pictured) blocked the road in 1986. Viriditas (talk)

(2 edit conflicts)

It is mentioned in my book about Crater Rim Drive: "Within half a mile of the intersection with Crater Rim Drive, Chain of Craters Road crosses a narrow flow of pahoehoe lave that errupted in 1874, then reaches Lua Manu, the first pit crater." ???? –Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's old lava. The photo you added is about 1-2 miles from the end of the road. You can't really see active lava like that from the road; you actually have to hike onto the lava! Anyway, not to worry. I found the pics you need on flickr and I'm uploading them now for you. No worries. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to step out right now and get some lunch. I'll upload the photos in a few hours or so. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you should be writing this article! I am just trying to figure out what is there. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing great. I just wanted to point out that the photo was taken miles from the road. Flickr is easy to use. Anyone can use their photos on Wikipedia as long as it meets the strict licensing requirement on this site. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...this map (PDF) will explain why the active lava flows (like the photo you added) can't be seen very well from the road. Look for the flow dates and you'll understand. I believe there are locations where you can see flows in the east rift zone from a great distance during the day with binoculars, but it's pretty rare. Viriditas (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't upload any photos as there seem to be a few on commons already. Viriditas (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, 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.

--Wizardman 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kīlauea

Good work as always, and I'm glad to see you are going full-speed ahead into terra incognita, but if you take a look at the lead paragraph for Kīlauea, you'll see that it already says, "Kīlauea is currently the most active volcano on the planet,[1]", and a few sentences later, you added: It is the world's most active volcano.[2] Don't worry, I've done that kind of thing before. MIght be time for a self-revert? :-) BTW, congrats on another DYK! Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed that afterward. Sorry! The Humpback Whale DKY is now on the main page. –Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I added it to the newsletter before you were even aware of it. I'm keeping track. :-) Viriditas (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the newsletter? (I have a hard time finding things on wikipedia.) I was looking at the portal yesterday. Who is in charge of it? –Mattisse (Talk) 16:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave you a link to the newsletter below this section. I've been adding you to the News Bureau page for inclusion in May's issue. Jonny-mt is currently in charge of the Portal, but he's recruiting volunteers to help out and if you go to the project talk page, you'll see a list of tasks he needs done. If you want to help out, just contact him. I'm going to leave you a link to the newsletter below, but I'm going offline for the next eight hours (or more) Enjoy your day. Viriditas (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008

Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii

I've noticed your good edits on the beautiful Hawaiian isalnds. Keep up the work! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It's always great to be noticed. –Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands

Mattisse, take another look at your source you used for this edit. I think you meant to type "coral reefs". Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It currently reads, "Its islands contain 70% of the active volcanoes in he United States." It should actually read, "The islands contain 70% of all of the coral reefs in the United States." For more on the relationship between volcanoes and reefs, see Evolution of Hawaiian volcanoes. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict

I see what you mean. I can't believe I got that whole sentence so wrong. I will remove it. I am having a really hard time with Chain of Craters Road just figuring out what is where. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing just fine. If you have any questions, ask. Otherwise, I'll keep an eye on the contribs. BTW, I found some good sources to expand the whale sanctuary article! Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it just occurred to me, it would help you to use the park map (PDF). That way you can see the actual area and place it in reference to the subtopics discussed in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is acceptable to upload a copy of the road map as well. I'll try to do that. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been to Wikicommons in the past looking pix on Hawaii. It is supercaterized into a wlter of unfamiliar names. A map would be wonderfull! Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 02:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that the current method of categorization is altogether useless and unfriendly to most editors. BTW, I think the map should be added to {{Infobox road}}. I'll concentrate on those two things right now, but I'll also make a request to the road project (see the tag on the talk page) to check my work. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be able to talk more about the eruption of Kilauea in June 1969, that eventually closed the Chain of Craters Road. You could probably write several large paragraphs on this subject alone. Go to Google and you'll find a lot about this. Having just looked at Google Books, you will find a lot about the road here. More than you will ever need! Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a lot to talk about everywhere on that road. Soon I will be away for a couple of weeks and will have uncertain access to the internt. But I have much to learn to complete the article. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you need to get started is in the Dartmouth link I gave you below. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

13 April

I'm terribly sorry about inserting the placeholder image in the Settled insanity article. It was entirely inadvertant, and I don't even know how I did it. I'll be more careful in the future. Webbbbbbber (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your acknowledgment on my talk page! All the best,

Webbbbbbber (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes your next DYK...

Excellent news, Mattisse! The 1992 edition of Road Guide to Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park is online here. It has a lot of content about Chain of Craters Road! I own the 2007 edition so I can correct any outdated information. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, comparing the two editions shows there are major differences with numbers. For example, in 1992, the road was 23 miles long, whereas now it is 20 miles (due to lava flows). So be very careful about quoting old numbers. But it's a good source to use for details about the road trip, the craters, and other sights along the way. Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, don't worry about the numbers; I'll review them based on the 2007 ed. I own. At least you now have a link to a lot of info about the road. Viriditas (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Thanks for the tips! It looks like a great new source. I know the road had been blocked by lava and reopened several times so it makes sense the length would change. Last time I know of is 1995 -- maybe your information will tell me its open again.

In Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary there is a repeated sentence and refs. The second and third paras each start with the same sentence. Which do you prefer? –Mattisse (Talk) 14:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it, but I trust your judgment. In another matter, if you are able to access the 464 page document I added to the further reading section online, you will be greatly rewarded. There's enough information in that report to keep you busy for the next decade. :) Viriditas (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted it for DYK and added a volcano pic to catch the eye of the DYK people. I changed the mile length at one point and gave a guess at the kilometers. What do you think? –Mattisse (Talk) 16:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just heard that Kīlauea ⋅ volcano has been erupting for some days now, and 2000 visitors in the park were evacuated but have now returned. –Mattisse (Talk) 16:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kīlauea has been erupting continuously for the last 25 years. The most recent evacuations were caused by an increased emission of sulfur dioxide gas from Halemaumau Crater and Puu Oo's vent. Not entirely sure what a photo of Kīlauea erupting in 1954 has to do with an article on the road. The lead photo should be an image of the road. Viriditas (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead pic can be changed after the DYK. The DYK pic must be informational at 100x100px. They turned down the above typhoon pic (which I thought was fine) because the details were not meaningful at 100x100px they said. If you go to the DYK page for April 12 (I think), their explanation is there. The road pix would not be meaningful on the main page with the hook from my view, but I could be wrong. We can think about changing the pix. I agree that the road pix is more representative of the article. Maybe you can come up with a better hook. We can submit an ALT hook with an ALT pix.

I wrote an article on pit craters and plan to do one on Halemaumau Crater which is essentially a pit crater, from what I read. In mainland United States, the activity of the volcano is not covered, so it is not very real here. I only found out accidentally about the recent evacuation. My reading this last week has been very enlightening. –Mattisse (Talk) 13:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, and thanks for taking the time to explain about the photo. I wasn't even aware of the DYK guidelines for pics! Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic Psychology

I'm a portuguese wikipedist and student and I´m making a work about Forensic Psychology. I've read that you are a Forensic Psychologist so maybe you can help me. I´m having problems at understandig the diference between Forensic Psychology and Legal Psychology. Could you help me?

Thank you - stinky cat (plese answer here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.95.1 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer on your page because I do not have an account on the Portuguese wikipedia. I think the difference is that forensic psychology is more applied psychology and legal psychology sounds more research and academically oriented. I only know about legal psychology from the article here at Wikipedia. I did not know that there was a formal field called legal psychology before. It appears from reading the legal psychology articles that there is a lot of overlap, but that legal psychologist do more research and teaching than normally a forensic psychologist does. This is just my opinion. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to write a DYK...

Mattisse, I would like to add a small blurb in the May Hawaii WikiProject newsletter about how to write a DYK. You've already given me suggestions in various places, so I could put those together and add them to the newsletter and have you review it (and add your name as a contributing editor) or you could just write a fresh take on it. Let me know, ok? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

Dear Mattisse, Its been long since you are trying to help me in response to my request. You had always been a good friend as well as a good editor for my articles. I understand that my articles are troublesome and also they need much more back up for establishment. But I always had primary problems with language quality and presentation style for wiki. Will you please do a last favor for me? Just go through the "Death and adjustment hypotheses" article and simply correct the language and presentation style. I know that you have the hypotheses book,and in anyway it is just the description of the hypotheses, not any explanation. It may be a single sitting task for you. Will you do this last favor for me? I have seen you in too much trouble not only with editing but also with some editors. So if you decline, I will not be surprised. But about your troublesome conversation with any troublesome people who disagrees with you, the best way is to stop answering and counting stars instead. Shoovrow (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name change

I replied on my talk a while ago if you have any wuestions. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chain of Craters Road, 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.

--Cirt (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article pit crater, 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.

--Royalbroil 04:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattie

Mattisse hun, you haven't been on wiki for a couple of weeks. Are you ok? Merkin's mum 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been having a good experience on Wikipedia and have been losing interest. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

(copied from Redthoreau's talk page as message from Coppertwig)

Thank you very much, Redthoreau, for supporting me at User talk:Iantresman#Hoping for a fresh start and User talk:Coppertwig#Objection. I really appreciate it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message on Mattisse' talk page: in this sort of message I urge you to avoid repetition, e.g. using a form of the word "attack" more than once; to make the message as short as possible; to avoid strong words such as "attack" in the title or edit summary; and to avoid stronger words such as "harass" altogether. I also urge you to consider retracting or modifying words you've used in the past towards Mattisse such as "vandalism" and "libelous". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ace record label.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ace record label.JPG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

I look forward to seeing more of you around here. I'm working on three DYK's right now, so let me know if you want in! :) Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are aware of it or not, but your contributions have been recognized here. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks

In the 2 days since you have been back from your several week hiatus (in which I harmoniously edited - with 0 problems with other editors), you have made obvious veiled references to me as being a "POV pusher", "aggressive", "amoral", and "abusive". You have made obvious but 'cleverly' veiled references to me not only on 2 editors talk pages 1 2, but also the Wikipedia Administrators' notice board 3. All of these have been unprovoked, as I have not had any contact with you in weeks - as I had (naively I guess), believed that you were finally willing to go about your way and edit without constantly making unfounded and merit-less attacks against me --- as you did during the several weeks where you made it a hobby to harass me, my talk page, and any article I was working on a daily/hourly basis. For the 20 + time, please desist from constantly attacking me for no reason - and please use the talents I know you possess to be a productive wikipedia editor. I will be logging all of your attacks against me this time, and hope that it will not be necessary to seek administrative action. Thank you. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 01:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently old habits die hard. You continue to make unprovoked attacks WP:APR against me by referring to me "stalking" you, being "abusive" etc. You have also taken up the former hobby of following my actions around and attempting to get content I upload/add deleted as you have here, and here. You have been warned about this practice before by administrators and I will politely ask you again to please desist from doing it. Your selective "moral outrage" at any wikipedic contribution I make, and practice of following my contributions around for every little guideline "challenge" WP:GAME you can make = is a form of harassment.

In a nutshell:

You are the only person left beating the horse after it has died, consider the possibility that you should stop.

Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 03:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, What language do I need to convert this to? How may more ways do I need to express my desire to have you "leave me alone" and remove my name from your "vocabulary/lexicon". Pretend I don't exist and desist from this obsession that you have with me, and every edit I make. I am astounded that you have taken it upon yourself to distribute your skewed interpretations on the reality of this situation all around Wikipedia ... it is not a case where the kid who yells the loudest is right. I want to be done with you, I want to never have to address you again (as was the case the several weeks when you were on vacation and thus were not harassing me), but you constantly on a daily basis create situations where I am justified in responding to your allegations against me. JUST STOP ! it is very simple. If you never attack me, I will never have to respond to you ... how hard is that to understand. If you notice ... I only "respond" to your attacks/allegations/ and attempts to "game the system" against me. I am in a reaction-type role. I have no desire to continue this feud or fuel this odd obsession of yours that goes back months with me. Let it go ... please ... edit your numerous articles and be a contributor to Wikipedia ... and pretend our paths never crossed. Since there is no "block" option ... I am unsure of how to deal with you further ... and perplexed of how to proceed with an individual who interprets every action out of its appropriate context and has such a glaringly different interpretation on every event than the observable reality. When you attack me ... and I ask you to stop ... = that is not an attack or harassment. When you make unfair allegations against me publicly and I defend myself or refer to them as baseless = that is not an attack or harassment against you. ----> Several editors have emailed me and told me that they have had previous run ins with you just like mine, and apparently you have built yourself up a reputation (making it easy to see why you are now trying to "Change" your name because of the backlash from your behavior) but under your facade of a difficult person to deal with - I know there is an intelligent, and talented wikipedic editor - who for some reason just can't let things go sometimes ... and spirals into this wikipedia tirade where when you feel "scorned" - you seek out every forum/admin imaginable to cast aspersions against me/others - which in reality are just my requests for you to STOP attacking me or selectively disputing my edits as you have here. Please ... move on ... for the better of both of us.

Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 20:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Mattisse, 7 weeks have gone by since you were warned of this type of bahavior that you are now exhibiting. From your own talk page archive:

Following the contribution history of a user and posting to articles they've edited can be appropriate at times, but is inappropriate if the purpose is to punish or annoy the user. Since other people can't always tell what one's intentions are, one needs to be careful if following someone's contrib history because it might look as if one's purpose is to annoy. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are going to leave me with no other choice than to seek administrative action if you continue. This is my last warning to you, before I file a complaint of harassment.

Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 21:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not allow you to slander me in public any longer as you have Here. (Polaris never stated that I was the reason he quit, for all I know you most likely were - as you were for Sandygeorgia.) Every lie you post in public about me will be deleted by me ... until I am banned forever. You are an insult to Wikipedia without any integrity. I am ashamed that such a wonderful website like Wikipedia allows someone such as yourself to post here.

Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 15, No 45

It feels good to see you back. I am passing through a tough time. As a last effort for my second article I wrote to you and that is stored, most provably, at Archive 15, No 45 of your talk page. Again, welcome back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoovrow (talk • contribs) 01:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have thought about you often. I am glad that you know I am back, however in whatever feeble state I am in, perhaps similar to you. I have been in a hospital in Maui. Please communicate. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 01:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon! You know how important an editor and friend you are for me at wiki.Shoovrow (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, get well soon! Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

I have moved your question and Redthoureau's response to the talk page of the RfA to prevent disruption. Please consider that it is of no direct relevance for the RfA. However, I've left the optional question header in the RfA, alongside a link to the talk page for everyone interested. Dorftrottel (bait) 21:44, May 8, 2008

Coppertwigs' RfA is not the correct place to ask questions (if you can even call it a question) like this. While you may have not meant to do any harm by it, a better place to have gone would have been directly to Coppertwig's talk page, or dispute resolution of you did not get the results you wanted. Please understand that questions on a RfA should only deal with the candidates ability to handle situations related to administrative abilities and should not be a place to ask for advice. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that you did not offend my by any means, I was just simply informing you that an RfA is an inappropriate venue to ask the type of questions that you did. If Coppertwig has asked to to refrain from saying negative things about other users on his/her talk then don't, you can always just take such issues to WP:WQA. Hope that helps, cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, glad to hear you agree. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:10, May 8, 2008

The first course of action you need to take is bring it up with Redthoreau oh his/her talk page, if he/she continues to remove a comment that you see appropriate to be on a RfA (remember comments on RfA's should only relate to the candidate and their potential as a administrator) then bring it to WP:ANI for a wider community discussion. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

Please be aware that future edit warring on this page will be dealt with by blocks. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very helpful comment, esp. now that the page has been protected. Mattisse, you might want to bring this up at ANI instead. Please try to do it in as civil a manner as you can. Just saying. I'm not to trying to pretend that I know the background to any of this. Take care, Dorftrottel (talk) 23:58, May 8, 2008

WP:ANI notice

FYI, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:ANI#Mattisse about your edits. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of Peace

Mattisse, this is the last message that I will ever leave you on your talk page. I am unilaterally extending an “olive branch” , waving the “white flag”/ agreeing to a “peace treaty”, “cease fire” (or whichever cliché you would like) etc. It is hard for me to pin-point how our interactions spiral out of control each time we interact - (I am sure you would say it is my behavior as I would say it is yours.) That is no longer important to me. What is clear is that both of us are capable of editing wikipedia harmoniously (it seems) when we are not interacting with one another or crossing paths. As a result I will unilaterally avoid contact with you at all costs (irrespective if you do as well), I will not mention your name for any instance (irrespective if you mention mine), I will not take place in any arguments, debates, or discussions with you (irrespective if you begin one with me), I will not reply to any of your messages or allow them on my talk page (irrespective if you message me or post them), I will not file any admin reports on you (irrespective if you file them on me), and I will not allow your name to be mentioned anywhere on my talk page (except when I post this message) or user page (irrespective if you mention mine on yours). I love Wikipedia and what it represents (as I believe you do), I enjoy making it a better encyclopedia (as I believe you do), and I believe I can be a valuable asset to wikipedia (as I believe you can be). I am going to from this moment forward – wipe the slate clean – forget everything that has happened between us in the past – and forgive everything you have said about me (irrespective if you feel the same way). I am also going to apologize for the hurtful things I have said to you and the problems I have caused you (irrespective if you also want to apologize). I will not harbor any bad feelings towards you (irrespective if you do towards me), I will not follow your edits and contributions (irrespective if you follow mine), and I will not in any way discuss our past interactions (irrespective if you do). On these issues you have my word and my promise. It is my desire to go back to editing Wikipedia without conflict between us – and I hope you feel the same way. I hope that you will also seize this opportunity to follow my lead in regards to the above declarations, although I realize that I can not force you to do so. It is my desire is to be finished with this intractable conflict. Best of luck to you, sorry again for my part in our feuding saga, and good bye. Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In-Universe

Of course the plot section is written in an "in-universe" format, it's the plot description. Unless you write like, "In scene X, Clark does blah blah blah", then it's always in IU format. Go to any film or television article and they will all be the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do not understand the meaning. Somewhere in the article you have to analyze the plot and put things in perspective. Click on what "in universe" meaning on the template and perhaps you will get it. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. The plot section is precisely that, a plot section. The vast majority of film/television related articles do not interlace real world information with the in-universe information that describes that events that transpire in the episode/film. Check any film article, or any episode article. In fact, the only episode article that does do such a thing, that I'm aware of, is the one that I wrote personally (Pilot (Smallville)). I think you need to read WP:WAF's description of IU information and how it can be used inappropriately. A plot description that clearly identifies the episode it takes place in, does not contain original research, and does not go into obscene details is not a violation of any guideline on IU tone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, somewhere in the article you must give a clear eyed, objective view of the plot. Please read what the template says: –Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is original research in the section, please point it out, otherwise it is an "objective view of the plot". I don't need to read the template, I've been writing for fictional articles for quite some time now, and gotten plenty to featured status; I think I know what I'm doing. It says, "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." -- There's nothing real world omitted from the section. The article itself might be lacking some real world information, but that isn't an IU issue that's a WP:PLOT issue. There is a difference. Even then, I already have the real world information for that article, and the rest of them, I'm just a little too busy right not to clean it up and put it in. It's the same format as Smallville (season 1), and every other film article that is featured. If you read the "Problems with IU" section, the only thing that deals with plots is -- "A plot synopsis written like an historical account." -- For that to happen the plot descriptions would need to be written in past tense. The only time past tense is used is when it is appropriate, which is a rare case. If you think there could still be some tweaking of the words to better present the info in present tense, cool, but adding OOU info into the plot is generally not done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To write an article or section in a primarily IU style then I would have to incorporate every episode into one large section, as if it was a history lesson. Fortunately, each description is separated by when the episode airs. You clearly see that in "Episode X" these events occur. If you disagree, please feel free to take it up on the talk page of WP:WAF, because I'm sure others would love to get in on the convo. Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In simple terms, you cannot WikiLawyer the idea behind not writing in an IU tone. That is what you are doing, and that is the point you are missing. There is a difference between an article that writes in an IU tone (trust me, I can show you plenty ...here's one for example) and a page that just happens to have primarily plot information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No. Original research is not the issue. But somewhere you should give a realistic view versus the fictional view of the piece or episode you are describing. The objective view could be in one big piece to give perspective on the individual episodes you are describing. The point is to somewhere separate reality from fiction. You present the episodes as if they are reality with no counterbalance. But I do not care enough to continue this conversation further. Eventually it will be caught by someone, if you do not do the right thing now. This is at an end. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, take it up at WAF if you disagree (which you clearly do). Please do not get all uptight about it and say, "I don't care enough", because you obviously did when you placed the tag on the page. If you don't wish to go to WAF and get a real consensus on the issue, that's your problem, not mine. Either way, I hope you have a pleasant evening (morning if that's the case). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sorry

(copied over from my talk page:) Mattisse, thanks for this, but really neither you nor anyone else need apologize for opposing this article (or indeed, any other) at FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rongorongo

Why you changed the image size? [13] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the article is going to be penalized in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rongorongo because of things like the image size and the method of citations when the article is actually very good. You can change the image back if you don't like it. I did that as an experiement. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Brewer (ice hockey)

Hi! The copyediting that you've done is great, and if you would be willing to continue that would be excellent. This is my first FA nomination so I know it won't be at the highest level possible, and any help to get it there is much appreciated. In response to a few of your concerns, I will remove a few wikilinks. I know right now I have a few pages linked more than once, so I can at least limit the linking to one time only for the most part. For the Charitable contributions section, how would you suggest I merge it into the Personal Life heading? Should I include it as a separate paragraph, or do I add it into the prose of the personal life section? Lastly, you said "P.S. What happened at the end of his career that he did not suit up for three years? What is the state of his career now? I am not quite clear." I'm not quite clear on this statement. He is still an active player, so somewhere I must have led on that he is retired? Could you let me know the area of the article that hinted at this? Thanks for the comments! – Nurmsook! (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to sum up his career somehow. I don't know how, but the ending to an FAC is important. Perhaps some sort of summary statement about his place in hockey overall. It sounds like no matter what he does from now on, because of his accomplishments so far he has left his mark as a player. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr13

User:Epbr123 did not add the IMDB reference for the name of Eric Brewer. The diff of his only contribution to the article is here. Note, all he did was change "New York Times" to "The New York Times" in one of the references. Trebor (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused about the diffs. Are you saying I was wrong on both diffs? That is certainly not the way it seemed at the time when he did his drive-by edits in the middle of our FAC edits. I appologize for any incompetency on my part in understanding diffs. Drive-by edits are confusing and disruptive. I admit I do not have a firm grasp of the technology of Wikipedia. I am an editor and a copy editor only. However, I think I will stay away from FACs after my current commitment ends. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Epbr made two edits. His edit to Eric Brewer (ice hockey) was [14] which changed "New York Times" to "The New York Times". Later, someone removed the IMDB reference for Brewer's name, but this was not anything to do with Epbr's edit. His edit to RongoRongo was this, which was making changes related to WP:MOSNUM - the style guideline for dates and numbers. Per that guideline, adding a wikilink to "October 11" was definitely correct and changing "twenty-six" to 26 isn't incorrect (the guideline says either is okay). So neither of his edits did anything wrong. Trebor (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I do apologize genuinely. Although the second edit relating to WP:MOSNUM you say can be either way, it actually is incorrect according to normal standards of English. The edits looked to me at the time, when examined by me just after his edit and going by what was highlighted in red (which apparently is not the way to tell) incorrect. Therefore, I do not know how to tell what edit is what and will probably cease editing FAC's after my current commitment ends. I apparently cannot deal with drive-by edits. Sorry for any disturbance I created. I am adamantly against the type of drive-by edits the nominee engages in on FACs. People like me cannot deal with such superficial involvement in articles. Perhaps it is the "new" generation taking over which will drive editors like me, who do not want to be an admin, away after closing in on 50,000 edits. It is the way of the world. The only way I can survive here is by occasionally voicing my opinion as it is clear my time is coming to a close. It is also clear the nominee will pass anyway, so my voice is irrelevant. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't like to think of you being driven away from anything - we need as many talented editors as we can get. The "drive-by" edits are normally minor fixes of manual of style issues, and are intended to make only a small improvement to the article. And while those are improvements, we obviously also need people like yourself who want to write content for articles and make more thoughtful suggestions about changes. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask :) Trebor (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Press, Inc., v. Gerstein

I just saw that Grove Press, Inc., v. Gerstein was a red link and thought this might interest you. It would make a very interesting DYK. More about it here. The supporting source in that article is: Hutchison, Earl R. Tropic of Cancer on Trial: A Case History of Censorship. New York: Grove Press, 1968. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of that for me. I looked it up and, unfortunately, it is only of those cases that Google can find nothing about except mere mentions regarding the opinion in other cases. Thanks for thinking of me! –Mattisse (Talk) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just found another source: Rembar, Charles. The End of Obscenity: The Trials of Lady Chatterley, Tropic of Cancer, and Fanny Hill. New York: Random House, 1968. It looks interesting so I'll keep one eye open in case I find you something. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...there's a lot online, here. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget everything I said above. The real article is Charles Rembar - and it's a stub! :) Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Chatterley's Lover and D.H. Lawrence to Henry Miller and Tropic of Cancer to Lenny Bruce and his nightclub performances to Joe Redner and his strip clubs, etc. The lawyers in involved in these cases tend to have a low profile. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not this guy. I've found pages and pages about Rembar on google books. He seems to be quite famous, actually. Viriditas (talk)

What I am interested in is the legal reasoning involved in the court decisions. I will check out the books on Rembar. Why are you not writing an article on him? –Mattisse (Talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did it take you so long to ask me that? :-) Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is your reason? :-) –Mattisse (Talk) 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have none. As long as you are aware of the stub, I'm happy. :-) Viriditas (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aspect

Hi Mattisse,

Thanks for your improvements of rongorongo.

Just one comment for future reference, since it looks like you make the occasional edit elsewhere: You can say "had been collected in the late nineteenth century", but "have been" means it is currently relevant, and so is incompatible with a past date. kwami (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I don't understand all of Tony's comments about the article. Also, I don't understand parts of the article, so I appreciate any feedback from you. –Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: –

Thanks for the heads up, I also thought that adding the endash symbol itself was better than the whole endash script as one would think it saves bandwidth...Guess it's one of those things you learn in your first FAC! Thanks again and sorry for the mix up. – Nurmsook! (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mattisse

Mattisse, How are you? I was worried when I stopped receiving your email. I thought things got worse! Write to me about your conditions.Shoovrow (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just now getting better after weeks of antibiotics. How are you? By the way, thank you for your words as they were most helpful in understanding what was going on. On another subject, I was wondering if I could play "devil's advocate" to some of the thoughts in your writing. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always willing to accept any supportive act from you. I trust you. Could you please highlight first how you plan to do such? Is it some interaction in between the two of us or something else? Good to see you recovering!!Shoovrow (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking of asking you some questions about your adjustment hypotheses. However, if you have gmail, it is possible to "chat" via real time text with that. Other than that, I am not very sophisticated about internet communication. It is just that I have been thinking about your hypotheses a lot and there are certain roadblocks that I run up against in my mind, even though I basically agree with you. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be just excellent! But, could it be e-mail in place of instant chat? I have very little scope of continuous internet connection. Actually, I check my e-mail 2 to 3 times a day. Let me know. I will be very glad if we can come to some discussion on the hypotheses!Shoovrow (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Email would be just fine. I must admit I forget to check it for periods, but I will make an effort to be more consistent about that. –Mattisse (Talk)

Fine, I will wait for constructive or any other in depth criticism on my e-mail address.Shoovrow (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt

I've moved the BLP issue you raised back to WP:BLP/N and rather belatedly replied. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UNSC Resolution 304

Howdy, you taged an article of mine as unsourced but if you check the bottom there is a link to the text of the resolution at wikisource. Mind if I take the tag off? - Schrandit (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the source as being wikisource but did not think that was enough to satisfy WP:V and WP:RS concerns. However, if you feel it does, since I am not sure about wikisource, then it is O.K. with me if you remove the tag. –Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance wikisource has lifted the text right from the UN (Which makes said texts availiable for free online) so I think I will remove the tag. - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. –Mattisse (Talk) 12:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article merges

Hi, Mattisse! On 10 March 2008, you suggested a merge between psychological adaptation [15] and evolved psychological mechanism [16], but you didn't use the "mergeinto" or "mergefrom" tags, so it's unclear as to which article should be merged. Could you take a moment to revisit the issue or comment here or on the talk pages? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! They seem like the same article, so it all depends on what the ultimate "best name" for the article is. And on that, as this moment, I have no opinion although I can think about it tomorrow if you like. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! There's no time frame. How are things? Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still experiencing the sequalae of my so-called "seizure". Got my bill from Maui Memorial yesterday. Actually, I don't care. Onward and upward! –Mattisse (Talk) 02:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to hear that. I can't imagine the bill considering that MMMC is twice the average cost of medical care on the mainland. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you in regards to Wikipedia-related tasks. If you need my help, feel free to contact me. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. (The people at Maui Memorial were very nice.) Regarding the article merge, I recommend going with Psychological adaptation as the article title because it has more direct page links to it. Also it is less like jargon, the Evolved psychological mechanism apparently having been coined by one man, Buss, and I see no evidence that it has become a generally accepted term. Hope this helps. –Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for revisiting the issue. Please get well soon. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Yes, they are mostly from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. I'm not sure, but it's possible that some editors in Canada might use the expression, but in my personal experience that has not been the case. I've also noticed that many Europeans use the expression as well. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I suspected something like that. I don't know why but I find it irritating. Of course, that is unreasonable and I will try to suppress that feeling, especially knowing that origin is purely national. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my experience, when someone uses the term in the context of signing their edits, it is equivalent to saying "sincerely", "thanks" or even "have a great day". That's it, really. Anything that greases the wheels of civility is probably a Good Thing, but I bet your problem comes from people using it who may not be sincere - am I right? Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What bothered me, for example, is when it is a sign off to a harsh criticism. It seemed inappropriately flippant. But looking at it as "greasing the wheels of civility" is a helpful perspective. (I have gotten tired of the institutionalization of "have a nice day". I must be a grouch.) Cheers! –Mattisse (Talk) 14:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. It does seem out of place if the tone of the criticism is harsh. Viriditas (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ionides

Sorry! I didn't realize that you were still working. I did a bit of formatting, but I'll stay out of the article until you're finished. Great work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am finished. Go right ahead and do what you want to do. I may have made some errors in the article, so feel free to change what is wrong. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Canasvieiras‎

An article that you have been involved in editing, Canasvieiras‎, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canasvieiras‎. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subpersonality

I had posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, but thought that I would post here as well. Subpersonality is listed at Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year. Unlike psychotic multiple personalities who have no integrating ego, (

) are able to organize their personalities, meet their needs, and ultimately utilize their personalities to the advantage of the total self. If you think it is worth at least a stub, please create the article. If not, perhaps create a redirect to where it would be best directed. Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hi, Mattisse. Sure, let's talk by e-mail. I'll send you one tomorrow; please look for it. :-) Viriditas (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent. Let me know if you didn't get it. Viriditas (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman trade with India

Hi Matisse. I totally agree that changing the name of the article to "Roman trade with modern India" doesn't seem to make much sense at all. First of all the new title is absurd: the Romans never traded with "modern India" in the first place :). Then, in this context, I think it is totally normal to take "India" in its historical acceptance (the South Asian peninsula). I strongly support returning to the original title. Cheers PHG (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it makes no sense! What do you recommend as a course of action? Is not an admin needed to move it back? Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

I have been exceedingly patient with you throughout months of attacks on my talk page; please stop. You are no longer welcome on my talk page, and further attacks will be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

en dashes

<copied from User talk:Viriditas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never answered my question about en dashes. An now it has come up again. The link to en dash does not, for me, answer the question of when a hyphen is not the same thing as an endash (which the FAC people seem to infer that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't). In their actions they (the FAC people) often, but not always, act as if they really mean hyphen and get angry if en dashes are put in. Could you explain to me the situations in which a hyphen vs. a html en dash is used? I think there is a third type of dash that SG alluded to. I would so much appreciate it. This issue prompted the first SG public attack on me as well as the second, and I still don't get it. Please help me understand. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public attack ? Please take great care in the allegations you make about me, Mattisse. Dashes are fully explained at the two links I gave you then: Dash and WP:DASH. If you have further questions about them, you're welcome to ask them on the appropriate talk pages. You aren't welcome to disrupt FACs and RFAs with unfounded charges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<copied from User talk:Viriditas> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did all the major editing for that article and once I made a mistake and was punished I did not post again on that article page. What is the problem? That I am never welcome on the FAC pages, which is the way you are making it seem? I blundered out of ignorance and apologized. Further, I asked for clarification, which I never received. If I am not allowed on you FAC pages, then just say so. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one "punished" you and no one can tell you where to post (unless your disruption calls for admin attention). But, you did enter an Oppose on an RfA that you never struck from the RfA even after you were told clearly by multiple people it was incorrect; and you entered the same information on a FAC, where it was irrelevant and you also didn't remove it, and objected when I did move it to the talk page. It is not right to disrupt someone else's RfA or FAC after you are asked to discuss your misunderstandings on the talk page instead. So, considering that behavior in three places (an RfA, a FAC and my talk page), I suggest someone else will need to explain dashes to you; it seems that every time I talk to you, it results in an attack on my talk page, even after I defended you before ArbCom. And, you clearly stated on Viritidas talk page that I had attacked you, which is false (" ... the first SG public attack on me as well as the second ...). Consider striking that charge (as you should have stricken the inaccurate statements about Epbr123 from the RfA and from the FAC). This is my final word; the only reason I engaged is you made an untrue statement about me on Viriditas talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I'm sorry if you are having problems reading your own talk page, but it you continue to make unfounded statements about me, this isn't going to end well. I suggest you keep your issues on your own talk page and discuss them here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different comment made on June 10. She must have removed her tirade made a few days ago, the one she was making in the midst of my attempting to post to you on June 22. I guess this page is on her watchlist and she watches any comment made from me to you, including this one. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tirade? The conversation is right here on your own talk page where it belongs. And the conversation about dashes is at WT:MOS#Query, where it belongs. If you have problems understanding dashes, that is the place to ask your questions and follow up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered that you read my every word and feel that you must reply, even to stray comments made by me on the talk pages of others! I must be important! –Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not flattered. It's getting tiresome, this fixation of yours on my every slipup. But of course, you may have the last word. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hello. I have been told I need to find a notable editor to look at and approve my article about The MyoGauge Pain Measurement Test (PMT). The paragraph I wrote is simply a statement about the company I work for, and I my opinion is not promotional in the least. We simply feel that our test should be included in the list of Malingering Detection and should also have a description attached. I looked at the history of the Malingering article and found that you have contributed to it at times. Could you please review what I wrote and submit it in a way that will allow it to stay posted? Thank you for your time. Csbruggers (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,

were you responding to me or someone else at WT:FAC just now? (feel free to reply here) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I've become grouchy in the course of this discussion on how to identify "significant contributors" and "main editors". I may have interpreted things wrongly. Please forgive me and don't take what I say personally. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, it didn't bother me. I often suggest new approaches to old problems, and on average, about 90% of the responses are negative...which is as it should be at the brainstorming stage. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to virus

Hi Matisse, thanks for your support, it means a lot to me, and thanks for the edits and noticing the flaw in Template:virus glossary. I'm surprised and pleased that we did not have any edit conflicts today. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm ^Talk 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I put you in fear of edit conflicts! I very much enjoy the article and like rereading it. It is a pleasure. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about the misunderstanding, your were right of course. And, with regard to the other FAC, I agree with you, but I don't want to get embroiled, it's getting a bit confrontational there. Graham. GrahamColm ^Talk 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. You are taking the wisest approach. FAC is very difficult and you are handling beautifully. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Viriditas (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm back

Agitation (emotion)

please retract or justify accusations

DYK

Subcats

Warning

Some help

Important note

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses

Opaeka'a Falls

Re Che Guevara article

Aloha Plumeria Award

Mattisse talk should not be archived

Natural Law (Star Trek: Voyager)

CfD nomination of Category:Personal Autobiographies

Pigweed

Saudade article

WikiProject Hawaii Stub expansion and DYK coordinator

DYK

MD article

Village pump - they gave some good suggestions

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Soulstirrers.Cooke.cover.jpg)

Please familiarize yourself with dispute template policy

Mattisse the accuser

CfD nomination of Category:Black autobiographies

dyk

Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary

Categories

Coconut Island II

DYK

Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008

Hawaii

13 April

Here comes your next DYK...

Archives

Forensic Psychology

How to write a DYK...

Please respond

Name change

DYK

DYK

Hi Mattie

New Project

Thanks

Image copyright problem with Image:Ace record label.JPG

Welcome back!

Please stop the personal attacks

Archive 15, No 45

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Coppertwig

WP:ANI notice

Offer of Peace

In-Universe

Re: Sorry

Epbr13

aspect

Re: –

Hello Mattisse

Manhunt

UNSC Resolution 304

Article merges

Cheers

Ionides

AfD nomination of Canasvieiras‎

Subpersonality

E-mail

en dashes

New message

Sorry,

Smile