User talk:Mattisse/Archive 22

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_21) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_23)

Wolters TFA nomination

I have nommed Wolters for TFA. Would you mind going here and joining as a conominator? Please.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Wehwalt. It is very generous of you. I went there and registered a support. I hope I did it correctly. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. How are you doing?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not very well. The suggestion from the Arbitrators so far is to ban me for 60 days. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll go take a look at it. I can't see how that would help.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the chorus of indignation, to which I have added my voice, speaks for itself on NYB's proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Solar Urticaria GA

Hello once again. As an update on the edits, I realize that I haven't made any in a while, however I have been having issues finding the information you have requested. I have actually tried finding much of the information in the past but had a hard time because of how rare the disease is and the limitations on my resources. However, in the mean time, I will keep trying to find the answers to your questions. NYYfan1 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Narcissistic personality disorder

RE: Reversion of my edit; understood -- then an elaboration at Pathological liar: Diagnosis in Psychology would be useful. Thanks. algocu (talk) 17:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Loihi

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Loihi Seamount/archive2. Trying again. ResMar 23:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wolters

Will be TFA 6/2. Hope you will keep an eye on things and help out with talk page discussion, and combatting vandalism and unhelpful edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

An actual message for Mattise: Goals in email

Hey, as for goals for the mentor/advising thing, mine would be pretty much what I said to you via email.. text starts with "I think the key thing for you to take home...". Do you have any objections to some or all of that text? If so drop me a line via Talk or Email; but it's nighty-night time here now so expect a slow reply. Later Ling.Nut (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

Per this, if you cannot find someone to serve as a mentor or adviser in a way that satisfies the community, you can add me to the list. I know there are probably better candidates that have offered, but I would rather not see you get into a position where you are left without someone in the next 15 days. So, you can consider me a backup, a primary, whatever. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Along the same lines as what OR just said, I almost certainly would suck as a mentor. I have a fairly long history of spending about half my time arguing with people (though I'm trying to cut down now, as per WP:DGAF). Please do not consider me as a primary candidate or anything. However, I could offer a second opinion on issues from time to time, if you like. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like this ArbCom case may now at last be heading towards a reasonable settlement Mattisse, and I hope you feel the same way. I also hope that you take heart from the offers made by the two reprobates above. Frankly though, if I were in your shoes I wouldn't touch either of them with a very long barge pole, and I'd want an even longer one for me. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse, I'm willing to act as one of your advisers, per your request. I've created a thread Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users willing to act as advisers where I've signed up. I suggest you ask others to sign up in the same thread. --Philcha (talk)

A list is a good first step, but what is needed, in my view, is a dedicated page (with an associated talk page) containing, among other things, clear statements, agreed by Mattisse and each editor offering to advise/mentor, on what the relationship involves. Geometry guy 12:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

What's the process you have in mind, G-guy? The one I had in mind was: identify those involved; agree objectives (possibly multiple); brainstorm; draft procedures. At present I think one page will be needed for the design and another for handling specific cases. --Philcha (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much the way forward I have in mind too. The place to do this drafting, in my view, is the dedicated page itself, and the place to brainstorm, discuss and agree objectives is the associated talk page. The question is, where should this page be, and what should it be called? Geometry guy 13:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW the point of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users willing to act as advisers is to make it publicly clear that this approach has enough supporters to make it a runner. --Philcha (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users willing to act as advisers has de facto become the place to sign up.

I've raised at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Where to put all this together? the question of where the plan should be designed and operated. --Philcha (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Several people (including me) volunteered before Philcha quite helpfully put up that thread. Do y'all plan to notify them of the new de facto signup spot? Ling.Nut (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to those listed at this page, I was hoping they would have this on their watchlists and would sign up at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users willing to act as advisers. Fowler&fowler posted other suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users willing to act as advisers, and I'm inclined to see whether / how they respond rather than push them. I think volunteers will do better than conscripts in this. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 has kindly set up a sandbox page where we can start working out the details. I suggest we discuss ideas at its Talk page first. --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have declined to post at your talk page due to our fractious interactions, and quite frankly, that I assume you don't care what I think. But I'm trying to make chicken salad here, and I honestly believe that your contributions are highly valued and both of us have misunderstood quite a few issues.

In this spirit, I have attempted to come up with a resolution to the ArbCom case, as posted here by Philcha. I am making some assumptions about your motivations in this resolutions, so you must confirm if they are accurate or deny them and offer alternatives to any objectionable stipulations. The 3 steward system I have formed has clear consequences in it, including the possibility that the stewards you agree to may block you. The success of this system depends on your willingness to have stress-free interactions with other editors. You must trust these stewards to tell you when you are wrong and back you up when you are right. I do not anticipate any further judgments attached to any steward's statement other than to give you a different perspective. But you must be willing to continue to work within the 3 steward system in the event that you are blocked. All four of you must be very honest about what you expect to happen with this system. If you are uncooperative it will fail. The alternative is the 60-day block at this moment. I, for one, think that is a last resort although I understand why it was offered. Your feedback is integral. --Moni3 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Plan for Arbitration

• Although it has not been passed yet, ArbCom has so far suggested that I come up with a plan in conjunction with one or more of my advisers. Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers.
• I wish to thank deeply all those editors willing to work on a positive outcome for me in this arbitration and especially thank those who signed their names at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users willing to act as advisers. User:Ottava Rima and User:Ling.Nut have also posted on my page their offers to help and I would like to add their names to the list. I want to develop a plan to submit to ArbCom in conjunction with those editors willing to continue to help me find a solution. Please, I urge all those editors willing to do so to contribute to developing my arbitration plan at User talk:Mattisse/Plan.
• I would use the word "mentors" but it seems there is opposition to the use of that word. I personally have no objection to a mentoring relationship. I have had such relationships in the past with User:Salix alba, User:SilkTork and User:Geometry guy, all of which were immensely satisfying. I welcome more such relationships and opportunities for feedback. User:Philcha and I have successfully collaborated in the past and hopefully we will continue to do so. Warmest regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. Moni3, RegentsPark and I have done a bit of work at User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom, and it probably needs review and comments from others, especially you, before any attempt to spell out procedures in any more detail. Please let us know if you spot any errors, omissions, things that are poorly explained or just plain bad ideas. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Philcha. I'm sorry but I am not up to copy editing at the moment. I have already made some initial comments in response to Moni3's inquiry at User_talk:Mattisse/Plan#The_Mentors. There are also comments from others with which I basically agree at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Edit_break. I could not openly consult with someone that was also my potential punisher - a person in the good parent/bad parent role. The regime does not seem to be oriented toward furthering my growth in the use of collaborative relationships, but rather the opposite. Also, just three advisers would be inordinately stressful, as the likelihood that none of them would be available for periods of time would be high. Then I would be left rudderless under pressure. However, I will look at it more. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at the benefits, Mattisse. If you play by the rules, you get advisors whose brief includes clobbering anyone who gives you persistent grief at the personal level. Speak up at the Talk page if you think it's unbalanced in any way - the more you contribute to the plan's development, the more support it will get at ArbCom, compared with the alternatives.

Number of advisors is an issue I've raised at ArbCom - even covering who's online at what times. We're all looking for ways to make this idea work.

BTW I notice you've listed a bunch of willing mentors. You should ask them to sign up in the bullet list at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users_willing_to_act_as_advisers. IMO the more the better, as it provides options like vacation cover and shift rotation. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my list of willing advisor would drop to zero if they have to do things like sign up for vacations and shift rotation. I think the ArbCom wants me and my advisor(s) to decide on the details, such as number of advisors to insure that we each buy into it and are willing participants. My understanding of their words, and I will read them again, is that for that reason, they want me in conjunction with the actual advisor(s) to come up with the proposals. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the "list of willing advisors would drop to zero if ...". Wouldn't having holiday cover and off-duty periods reduce the pressure on them?

If you see possible improvements, speak up - it's for your benefit. --Philcha (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy has told me in the past that his wiki time is limited and that he does not like using what little he has on this kind of stuff. Ling.Nut does not always have computer access and is not always sure when he will. He has asked to be put at the bottom of the list. Salix alba goes for days without being on wiki, as does John Carter. Ottava Rima is often absent or preoccupied for days; for example, he has not entered into this discussion. SilkTork has has an infant to care for and does not always know when he will be available. Fowler&fowler has a busy real life, as do several others. And so on. I think it would boil down to Malleus, who appears to be on wiki the most but who is not keen on being really involved, certainly not keen on being the mainstay.[1] —Mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So far 7 people have publicly signed up at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision#Users_willing_to_act_as_advisers. That's in the 6-9 range I thought (about a week ago) would give sufficient cover. And with RegentsPark and Moni3 on the list we have 2 who keep similar hours to yours. I don't think the idea will fail for lack of willing mentors. Probably the best contribution you can make to getting the "panel of mentors" proposal adopted rather than something harsher would be for you to state at the Talk page which aspects work for you and which cause you concern. --Philcha (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ling.Nut has said he is unwilling to be called a mentor as has SilkTork and they are unwilling to impose sanctions. Malleus said that he is unwilling to participate in a round robin 24-hour help line.[2]. SilkTork has a new infant and has limited time. Geometry guy has limited wiki time. Fowler&fowler is busy in real life. They are great as a panel of advisors, but I don't know if they are willing to follow your program. That leaves only three, you, Moni3 and Regents Park (who also expressed some reluctance about imposing his judgment over mine). You would have to find out how they feel about your program. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You know G-guy better than I do, but he signed up and I don't see him promising something he's not prepared to deliver. You know us both well well enough to realise that we speak our minds, although G-guy's more of a diplomat than I am (much more!), and Moni3 doesn't seem the timid type.

As for "round robin 24-hour help line", how long can you keep up round-the-clock WP activity? Or do we need to seek additional help at jp.WP and ru.WP? :-)

The bottom line is that some people are willing to risk their reputations to help you. --Philcha (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to turn it down a notch Philcha. The only reputation on the line here is Mattisse's, and she needs to be given the time and space to consider what it is that she wants to do. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse & forums

...too many forums! Everything is spread all over Wikipedia. Can we all agree to talk in one and only one place? Ling.Nut (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well Geometry guy suggested that I start a user spage page for the development of my plan so I used one of the links he suggested User talk:Mattisse/Plan. He said it was important that I have some control over my proposal. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yup! My point is that all this chatter on your Talk is unproductive, and should be moved to your Plan forum. Everyone chats on their Talk page, of course, but your talk page threatens to be overwhelmed by this talk. What will people do if they wanna ask questions about articles? You know, there is this thing called an encyclopedia out there somewhere in Wikipedia space.. :-P Ling.Nut (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do you think I should move what is here to a talk page off of User talk:Mattisse/Plan such as User talk:Mattisse/Plan talk? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I dunno. They're your pages! ;-) But I think that going forward maybe we should try to chat more there than here, when we are talking about this topic. My psychic powers are informing me that there are one or more Wikipedia n00bs aching to ask content-related questions from an old hand like yourself, but unsure where to turn... and perplexed by all this talk on your Talk... later! Ling.Nut (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ling that these are your pages, but at the moment User talk:Mattisse/Plan looks like a talk page, is being used as a talk page, and is by name a talk page. I view it as a workshop for you to develop your plan in consultation with editors wanting to help. I have been contributing to it with that in mind. The plan itself needs to be distilled from the comments there, and it seems to me that the obvious place for such distillation would be User:Mattisse/Plan (also in your userspace). On the other hand, commentary that is aimed at evaluating the plan, rather than developing it, belongs elsewhere, outside your userspace, and probably as part of the ArbCom case (e.g. the workshop page, or decision talk page).

This is just my opinion, however. There are many interested editors, and we need a way to allow everyone to contribute without snarling up the process by going round the same issues again and again. Geometry guy 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If I create the page User:Mattisse/Plan, where should I put the link? At the bottom of the talk plan page? And perhaps at the Arbitration workshop page? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't vital to link it because it will be automatically connected to User talk:Mattisse/Plan (see the "User page" tab at the top of that page). It would be helpful to note it at one of the arbitration talk pages: WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision seems to be the most active and relevant at the moment.

My suggestion is that this will ultimately be the page you submit to ArbCom if/when they ask for it (in a couple of weeks or more perhaps). But the current priority is to attract and encourage the advice of editors to help you make the plan as good as it can be. Geometry guy 00:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

People adding suggestions is one thing, but chatting ceaselessly with one another (and not with Mattisse) is something else again. The way I see it is this: take me and SilkTork for example. ST made his suggestions. I made mine. Fine. Done. There's no reason on God's green earth for he and I to babble at each other (or worse yet, babble with ten other people, including God knows who) about our suggestions. If Mattisse has a question, fine, she asks, we answer. But if ten people make suggestions and eighty people blather about them, then the result is chaos in which Mattisse has no clear voice. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate all suggestions, as I am at a loss here. Reggards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) A key feature of brainstorming is that you do not stop to evaluate ideas. I suggest that folks make suggestions (already done; we have pages and pages of them). I suggest you take on board everyone's suggestions. I do not suggest that you sit idly by and let folks yammer ceaselessly about the various drawbacks or benefits, real or perceived, about their suggestions and everyone else's too. Iron Rule #1 of Wikipedia: Yammering happens. Yammering is also unproductive. Mattisse, whatever comes out of this process needs to have your fingerprints all over it. It needs to be your decision. You should not be passively guided by others. You need to exert a guiding influence. So take all the suggestions that you want... but then you make the decisions. Not others. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• The actual proposal will be shaped here: User:Mattisse/Plan. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Re User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom and User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom

Hi, Mattisse. I think you need to distinguish between:

• Measures that will convince ArbCom that the situation is under control and there are good reasons for optimism. User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom attempts to provide these, and also aims to deter others from taking advantage of your situation, as we hope the panel of mentors will include some admins - neutrality cuts both ways :-)
• The techniques you should use in order to avoid trouble and then take increasing control over how you deal with difficult situations. In one way they are separate, as these are things you have to do, others can't do them for you. But stating them as part of your plan may well be good, as it will reassure ArbCom that conflicts likely to become less frequent and severe (they know conflicts can never be eliminated).

Re the techniques you listed in your message to me:

1. It seems to me I need to know clearly what a personal attack is and to stop making them.

   Is a desirable objective, but telling someone / trying not to do something is seldom successful unless the program includes new behaviour that "over-writes" the old ones. In this case the next item on your list, which G-guy highlighted (?) 2 weeks ago, is the big positive behaviour.

2. I need to concentrate on the article content rather than the behavior of editors.

   Yes. That means you need to preview your comments before hitting "Save". It'll be easier to look objectively at what you've written when you see it in the same format in which you see others' comments. Then you eliminate anything that's not strictly about the article's content.

3. I need to make only a few comments and then drop out of a thread. Can you think of more?

   Hmmm, I'm not sure about this one. If your previous comments all concentrated on content and avoided personalities, there may be no need to drop out. I say "may be no need" because you also need to ensure that your next comment brings something new and relevant to the party, preferably something that develops an idea presented by one of the intervening comments - that's "consensus seeking". So I guess that's another "preview and check before saving" operation.

Another thing your list should include is the "second hostile comment against you" trigger for seeking advice. This should save you from getting involved in prolonged personal disputes, and may also save you from being picked on, as the mentors will be displeased if others behave in this way.

Hope this helps. --Philcha (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. My plan is at User:Mattisse/Plan which I hope you will critique. As far as your comments above, except for reviewing articles for GA, I don't usually make extensive comments anyway. In any event, I intend to follow the rules above. However, it is confusing that the definition of a "personal attack" is unclear. I do envision that I will be commenting much less in total as a result of the ArbCom. It will not be worth the risk involved.

The hard part is coming up with a monitoring plan. Per ArbCom: The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

hello

• Thanks for the message. I would like to roll all these ideas around in my head, slowly. I assure you that I take it very seriously, I am thinking about it, and that my deepest wish is for a pleasant outcome.
• I think you should take great encouragement from the sincere well wishes of a number of editors, including but not limited to: Moni3, Philcha, Geometry guy, SilkTork, etc. I think the situation could fairly be described thusly: people support you, but sometimes clearly and firmly do not support the methods you adopt as a response to problem situations. It is very possible to support someone while not supporting their actions and/or not agreeing with their comments. When that happens, it may be all too easy sometimes to fall into a trap of misinterpreting others' disapproval of an action or set of actions... that is, misinterpret it by personalizing it; by believing it is evidence of a failed or negative or antagonistic relationship. Happily, in the overwhelming majority of cases, that misinterpretation does not reflect reality. WP:AGF is, in some respects, Wikipedia's way of encapsulating this idea, and hopefully, boosting our resistance as Wikipedians to falling into the trap of personalizing a disagreement by mistaking simple disagreement for personal animosity, disrespect or disdain. From time to time we all need to remember that the supermajority of editors are neither for nor against us, but are instead are for or against our behavior – which is an entirely separate and different thing.
• Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Plan

• In case you didn't notice, I replied to your Plan on its Talk.
• I think asking folks one by one to reply to your Plan is a very, very good idea. Ling.Nut (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I did not notice so it is a good thing you let me know! I responded as best I can. I have asked some people to respond to my plan: Malleus, Ottava Rima, Salix Alba, Geometry guy, SilkTork, and John Carter. And, of course, you. Moni3 and Philichea know about it and have commented on the talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Astrophysics Data System

I was astonished that a 2005 FA could look so good and be up-to-date with today's FA standards, until I looked through the page history. Nice work. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WT:GAN#Can non-contributors to an article nominate it for GAN?

Hey Mattisse, I'm not sure how active you are with GAN stuff while the arbitration is going on, but if you are still able to get into discussions there you might be interested in the question I just posted (linked above). Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say regarding this issue. It is complicated. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Missionaries and the Origin of Species

Among your very helpful edits to On the Origin of Species, you questioned in an edit aummary "not clear who was "as missionaries" - the Fuegians?" They were indeed, according to Desmond and Moore, under the leadership of trainee missionary, a Mr. Matthews who found it rather hard going and left them to continue with the Anglican mission work on their own. See Second voyage of HMS Beagle#Tierra del Fuego for the dismal tale. Having said that, your edit was really for the best as it's a bit of a side issue, so I've left that aspect out. . . dave souza, talk 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation does clarify why the three Fuegians might be different than those on the island, but I agree that it is tempting to get into distracting detail! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

retiring again

Hi Mattisse,

You'll recall that I had some reservations when you asked me to join the mentor list — not reservations about you, but reservations about the fact that I'm not too tightly attached to Wikipedia these days. So now I'm going to try to retire again. I wish the very best for you in all these things... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand and will miss you and hope fervently that you will be back as you. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could GG, Malleus, and RP pinch hit for me?

Hi Mattisse, I, on the other hand, am certainly not retiring, but will be away until July 1. (We are moving and I'm finding myself strapped for time, finding also that, in order to de-stress at the end of the day, I'm making random edits on pages that I usually don't edit. I certainly would like to me among your list of advisers, friends, and mentors, but I'm finding this RfArb becoming too complicated—requiring a measure of focus that I can't bring to bear on the topic right now. Could Geometry Guy, Malleus F., and RegentsPark pinch hit for me until July 1? In other words, I trust them enough that I'll go along with their proposals, if they have your blessings as well. You can always reach me by email in the event of any Arbitration-related emergency. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Just as long as you are not going away forever, which would be a huge loss. I certainly support anything that de-stresses you. Good luck with you moving. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Earl (1998)

I've replied to your comment on the review page of the article. Thanks again for reviewing it. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please change it. Sorry! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Origin of species as a "formative" event in people's lives

Possibly not what you meant, but if it was, please revert me diff! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, sorry you're finding concerns about recent directions, a pointer about the particular issues would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, dave souza, talk 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I was sorry to see the religious issues start to overtake the scientific importance of Darwin's book. I feel as if that aspect can be discussed in articles with a wider focus. I thought this article was about the book and its publication. If you get into all that, then it seems to me that you do have to discuss Darwin's changing personal views on the issues. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it worked pretty well shifting the religious aspects of the book itself from the publication section (where there's now just a brief mention) to the Religious attitudes section, and if anything that's more focussed on the book now. I'm less pleased with the addition of the '50s Roman Catholic position, and the sentence on the "controversy" in the Modern influence section, but both are pretty small in proportion to the article and arose from reviewer's concerns. With a bit of discussion we could look at tightening them further, or possibly removing them but that would have to be well argued against a likely backlash. Will review thinga in the morning. . dave souza, talk 22:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. But it looks like the references are not addressing the impact at the time, but rather are recent evaluations of the impact on a larger scale than just that publication at the time it was published.Initially, I was elated that the article seemed to be bypassing all of that. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed compromise wording (which I kind of like actually) in response to your last comment on the talk page. I would really like to here your thoughts on it because I agree that you have a point about problems with the text as it is now. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Reg Copyrights

I know a editor who is fairly good at handling issues related to copyright, and asked him a question. Hopefully he will get back. Regards, Nvineeth (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Mattisse, long time no-see (smile). I have a special request. On June 11th I nominated Rafael Carrión, Sr. for DYK and since it would be my 50th "DYK", and as such it would kind-of a milestone in my DYK's, I would like someone like you, who I admire, to look it over. I know it is a silly request, but a fun one at that. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that Rafael Carrión, Sr. was the founding father, as the reference after the hook doesn't state that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done, The book refers to him as the founder, but he was part of a group of founder, therefore I rehrased the hook. The statement "founding father" may confuse others. I was using it the same why that the term "founding father" is used to describe Washington, Franklin, etc. Do you think that I did the right thing? Tony the Marine (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• But you need to reference the hook in the article that Rafael Carrión, Sr. was a founder. See DYK rules D1 Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• • O.K., now I am confused, because I did add a reference to the hook in the article to that respect. I also added another reference for good measure (smile). Tony the Marine (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, sorry! It looks fine now. Maybe I forgot to refresh the page. My bad. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thriller (viral video)

Thanks for the fixes to the article. I've responded on the review page. :) Pyrrhus16 08:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting bored

All my FACs have passed, I have nothing near ready, and probably won't until August.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Poor you! I can work on your election article (ugh!) currently lingering at GAN if that would help. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you like! Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like but I will, if no one else steps up to the plate. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at it, or just judging the book by the title?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually looked at it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well, I got Happyme22 to take care of it. He's a Nixon fan, I gather. But once this and the 1946 article are done, I'm looking for other projects. I may go back and take care of Helen Douglas, but as a new bio of her is due out in November, I don't want to deal with that now. Am considering Matthew Boulton. Well known, fairly important, lots of source material out there, new bio out next month, neglected article. Worth doing. I still want to go back and redo Spandau Prison to complete the Speer trilogy, but am hampered by a lack of images, diagrams, that kinda thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Any subject but California politics! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of doing most of WikiProject California (of which I'm not a member) FA work and they give me absolutely no help. And I've asked. I get no response. Once I clean up the remaining articles, I'm done with California. I'd really like to find another Speer or Wolters but they are thin on the ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you doing it then? What about getting Richard Nixon to FA status? Or Spandau Prison? Or any of a bunch of articles that are not FA now? What subjects are you interested in? What about some legal topics? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about the Nixon article but don't want to step on Happyme22's toes. I don't know if I want to do a legal article, too much like work. I'm interested in almost anything, but not all articles interest me. I suspect the next project will come almost randomly, I'll pick up a book and get interested. --Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm like you. Something has to interest me, and usually the interests appear to come randomly. Plus, like you, I don't particularly like something in my field. I have wide ranging interests, and they have become wider even, due to Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Exactly. It just happens. Ah, the wasted years of our lives, before Wikipedia!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté (Puss in Boots)

Wow! I am so embarassed. I cannot believe I was so negligent with the details of criteria in entering a "Puss in Boots" hook at DYK! I've since upgraded the nomination and re-entered it as Le Maistre Chat, ou le Chat Botté (Puss in Boots). Hope it meets the criteria. Thank you for spotting the original entry's deficiencies in a very timely manner! Kathyrncelestewright (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Article looks much improved. It is easy to overlook important details in the rush to meet the time limits of DYK! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana

I've responded to your comments on the review page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on review page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Talk:Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've expanded the lead enough now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Done! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Homer

Thank you very much for your edits to the article! :) TheLeftorium 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am wondering if some of the info is necessary, like the long description of the writer's experience in the movie theater which don't seem quite the same as the Simpson plot. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. I guess you're right about that. I'll try to shorten it down. Are there any other information that seem unnecessary? TheLeftorium 22:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know if there are. I just removed a sentence, "Cartwright said the character designers had fun designing the musicians in the episode." -as it didn't say anything specific about how or what they enjoyed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. TheLeftorium 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

New project

I've started work on Matthew Boulton who is not a California politician, on a fast track trying to get it past FAC by 17 August, the bicentennial of his death. I've only done a couple of sections so far, but I think it should go well. I have a couple of books, have ordered one more, and a couple of news articles. Oddly, he's had very few bios written about him.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Right now I am working on On the Origin of Species. Where do you find these people? —Mattisse ([[User :

There was an article on him in World Coin News a couple of months ago, to which I am a subscriber. Then I recently noticed the bicentennial. Guaranteed TFA if I can get it to FA, I think! Don't hurry, it will take me a couple of weeks to write the article, with the limited time I can devote to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your obsession with TFA? Just the narcissistic pleasure? Are you aiming for a record? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is all about looking for a niche here. I started off badly at TFA/R, but I've developed into a sort of arbiter of the points system.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Must be the attorney in you. Definitely a better niche than mine. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that, you have far more people who have come to your defense than would come to mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But you don't do things that need defending. Besides, I came to your defense, the one time you seemed to have needed it. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, I avoid conflict. But when Jena Six was in the news, there were nasty discussions on talk page, before the other editors eventually got bored. And I withdrew from Rachel Corrie because I couldn't stand the constant bickering. Thanks for your support that time, by the way. That was a nasty RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, now I am using your strategy and avoiding conflict. I'm sick of it and would rather work on articles in peace. Besides, I don't have enough of a legal mind to argue successfully. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Golos Truda GAN

Ciao Mattisse, good to hear from you again.Sorry I have taken so long to reply to your message, I am travelling with little internet access until the 20th. If it's not to much trouble to off finishing up the GA review for the Golos Truda article until next week I would be most appreciative. Thanks for your work so far. Mahalo, [[user:| Skomorokh ]] 22:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. No hurry. Enjoy yourself! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Eve GAC

Come look at the progress.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added more comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Further guidance would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you look at other political biographies. The reviewer of GA1 suggested a couple and I suggested one in GA2. Another is Ron Paul which is more strictly political in content, but you can see how it is more that just a listing of his political activities. If you want, I can ask for a second opinion from someone like Malleus. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cyclone Nancy

Thanks for the review, I've replied to all your comments. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will look! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nereus (underwater vehicle)

On June 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nereus (underwater vehicle), 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.

Mifter (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus

Thanks for the comments - I've made some amendments.

If you do have anything else to bring up, I'd be more than happy to have a go at it, but I'm going to be away until Saturday evening, so I can't promise I'll be able to do anything useful before then! Shimgray | talk | 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my concerns have been addressed. Nice article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Shimgray | talk | 22:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Myōjin Yahiko

Its been long since Sagara Sanosuke became GA, but I finally edited the Myojin Yahiko article adding refs, exp lead, reception, creation, etc. I dont know if my grammar is better right now, but I made all the fixes you mentioned while fixing the Sanosuke article. Could you make a copy-edit to see if it can goes to GA. I was also thinking about getting the main series article, Rurouni Kenshin, to GA, but that one is too long and the one from Yahiko is shorter. Tell me if you can and take your time. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will look at it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hope what I did was helpful! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It became GA. Thanks for the copy-edit.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very happy to hear that. Congratulations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Eve

Just a quick note; if you feel at any point that you'd prefer to back away from the Arthur Eve GA review then I'd be quite happy to take it over from you, or perhaps one of your advisors? In any event don't let it stress you. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would like that. I want to see a good way of handling these situations and you could model that for me. I do feel unsure about how to proceed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want me take over the review then just post a note saying so on the review page and I'll take it from there. I'm certain that you'd do the same for me if the situation was reversed. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting about ready to close this review now Mattisse; just a couple of issues outstanding. Perhaps you'd like to take a look through my summary of what I think remains to be done, and if you think there's anything else maybe add it? Naturally I'll take any and all flak, but your opinion on the article now, either here or in the article's review page would be appreciated, at least by me. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly much improved and I agree with your judgment. (It still seems strange that his birth place is unknown.) Thank you so much for taking this review over! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That does seem strange, I agree, but public figures are often less than open about certain aspects of their private lives. I've got no doubt that Eve's place of birth coukd be established pretty easily, but unless we can provide a citation to a reliable source which has taken the trouble to do the investigation then it's just OR, not allowed by the rules of engagement here on wikipedia, as you know. And as this article is a BLP we need to be doubly careful. Anyway, thanks for taking another look through it; if you'd still had major reservations I would have failed the article. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the very thorough job you did! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

My last thought, and probably a presumptious one, so forgive me. It seems to me Mattisse that you've succeeded with this review in doing exactly what ArbCom, if they have any sense at all, ought to be requiring of you. I hope they were watching. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I decided not to list this article as a GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know the outcome. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, sorry to trouble you Mattisse. I don't believe that we have interacted before but have noticed your name about wikipedia. I have heard (or read) that you are particularly skilled at copy editing on articles. I am wondering if you would be able to perhaps help out at the benzodiazepine article? I don't know who else is particularly skilled in this area on wikipedia but if you can't help me out perhaps you could point me to other people who could help out? Best regards. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Some quick background, issues with references and most other issues have been resolved, copy editing has been done by several editors but reviewers keep finding several problems with the article and no matter how hard I or others try there is always "something" which remains to be done, so really think we need a skilled copyeditor to give the final nudge to FA status. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I can go through it strictly as a copy editor, not addressing content or referencing. Can't guarantee success though. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That is just what I need Matissa! I would really appreciate it. Content has already been debated and resolved pretty much, newer secondary sources, elimination of primary sources etc, all done. :) Thank you. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I will continue tomorrow, as I am too tired tonight. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Impressive so far Mattisse. :) It is amazing how much redundancy and needed copyediting is easily missed. One comment, you put a comma before the word "and". Is that American thing? I was always taught not to do that when in school in UK, just curious.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't put a comma before the last "and". There was one sentence where I added it in that situation because the context seemed possibly a little confusing, but its a judgement call so remove it if you think it is unneeded. It's an interesting article, a thorough explanation of the drug. I enjoyed reading it! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh right ok, no probs. :) I have replied to you on the talk page of beno article. Thank you for positive feedback on the article.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Mattisse, thank you for your guidance and understanding with the Ramprasad Sen article, and for helping make Wikipedia a positive experience! Regards, Priyanath ^talk 23:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome, as I believe your article deserves recognition. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the GAR, I feel that the article has improved since & I learnt quite a few things from the GAR. Thank you. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanks very much for all the polishing of On the Origin of Species to successfully bring it through FAC. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It was a pleasure! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

List of skin-related conditions

I have been working on this list for the past several months, and, if available, wanted to know if you would give me some feedback? I am thinking about nominating it for FA status in the next couple months, and would appreciate your input. Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia! ---kilbad (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a good person to ask, since I am not that familiar with skin conditions and I also don't know much about lists. I have never even copy edited a list. I notice that the article has an "A" rating. Good luck! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Some thanks for your help

I appreciated your hlep in getting a couple of evolution related articles to FA, and I decided to give you:

		The Bio-star
		For contributions in getting History of evolutionary thought and On the Origin of Species to FA status. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to give you yet another copy-editor barstar but this seems better somehow. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Origins Award
		Thanks for all the fish, Mattisse, and for doing so much to improve On the Origin of Species. . . dave souza, talk 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! A pleasure for me. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Senate election article

Do you think you can hold your nose and do some copyediting on United States Senate election in California, 1950?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried. But I ran into "party officials" in the lead, and could not go any further! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. How about Matthew Boulton, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Boulton is now at FAC, possibly a bit early but I think I can clean up the sawdust and mess faster than they can find it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

Hello, I was wondering if you would be willing to assist with the GA Sweeps process. We are currently looking over all of the GAs passed before August 2007 and determining if they still meet the criteria. After beginning with 2,808 articles we are now down to less than 900. Last month we had rapid progress, clearing over 300 articles. You've done a great job with the GA process, and with your contributions to so many GANs, I believe you would be a great reviewer for Sweeps. We are trying to complete the process in the next few months, and the best way to meet that goal is to have as many experienced reviewers as possible. I've given up reviewing GANs until this process is over, but you are under no obligation to do so. If you're interested in reviewing some articles, even if its only a few, it would be greatly appreciated. Instructions can be seen here. If you have any questions, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chitradurga Fort

Hi!Mattisse,

Since you gave me a tutorial about 18 months back on how to sign, I have made progress in posting articles on Wikipedia. My earliest one was on Kadamba tree which you had started long back. After that you have reviewed a number of my articles on DYK talkpage. I have now prepared an expanded version of the stub article Chitradurga Fort in my sand box page User:Nvvchar/sandbox, which you had started quite some time back. I have now expanded it by more than five times. I thought it proper to request you nominate this article (if you find it in order) on DYK with a suitable Hook. I will transfer it to the main article after hearing from you. Thank you.--Nvvchar (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure how to move the article out of your user space to replace the old article with the same title. If you just pasted it over, you would lose all of your edit history for the article. Have you thought of a way to do that? I would be happy to co-nominate it and give it a hook. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have pasted the enlarged article on the existing stub page of the Chitradurga Fort, as a start stage article. It does not disturb the History, since, in the Sandbox, only my name appears. You may kindly co-nominate with a hook and also an image of the fort.--Nvvchar (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The DYK has been cleared but I don't understand the remark which says "You seemed to have placed a reference within the body of the article, was this the intent?". Shall I say yes or would you like to reply? I have also read your observations on my User page. Thanks. Since I have seen most of my country as part of my service life, I suppose I can contribute articles on a number of subjects. Are there any stub articles on India which you want me to expand for our joint nomination?Thanks and Regards--Nvvchar (talk) 09:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the remark at DYK either. Maybe you should ask what is meant? I haven't worked on articles for India for a long time. The water and energy issues are particularly interesting. I tried to do some articles on the river systems and found it is quite complex. That is something we could think about. I was impressed at how creative and proactive India is in dealing with energy problems. (I change the Chitradurga Fort article to the way I had it before, but feel free to modify it to your preference!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making the revert. The DYK is through now. I will think about the issues you have mentioned to post artciles.--Nvvchar (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello, I heard that you reviewed GA nominees. If you have the time I would like you to start the review for Dwight D. Eisenhower and Sam Brownback. Thanks! --ilamb94 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I generally avoid English-speaking politicians! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That’s alright, thanks anyway! --ilamb94 (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Politicians speak English? News to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

sorry again

sorry again that I dropped out of the mentoring thing. Had to... Ling.Nut (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That's ok. I still consider you "in". I implemented your suggestion of a list of "stressful situations" and doing so has already been useful to me. There is plenty of time for you to help me out more. I value your judgment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Chitradurga Fort

On June 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chitradurga Fort, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 08:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:78 amos milburn 3inch.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:78 amos milburn 3inch.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Amos-milburn-aladdin.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Amos-milburn-aladdin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Slim harpo album.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Slim harpo album.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Fedboot-midnighters.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fedboot-midnighters.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Little anna may muddy waters aristocrat.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Little anna may muddy waters aristocrat.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Little richard specialty records.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Little richard specialty records.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:This is jimmy clanton cover.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:This is jimmy clanton cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Jerry allison crickets.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jerry allison crickets.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Blind boy fuller 78FULLSIZE.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blind boy fuller 78FULLSIZE.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Yazoo 1039.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Yazoo 1039.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably speaking out of line

I'm almost certainly speaking out of line here Mattisse, so I hope you'll forgive me, but my comment is prompted by a recent change you made to your ArbCom plan, which caused me to read it again.

Like you, if I'd found myself in the position that you now do—something that is not altogether implausible—I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to start, so I fully understand why you've crafted your plan as you have. But it seems to leave little room for your dignity, or to make it clear that you're in charge of events, not your mentors. If this plan goes tits up it won't be your mentors who get bollocked, it'll be you. Just my unsolicited opinion, feel free to ignore it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? At this point, it is very hard for me to evaluate the plan. It seems that much of the criticism is that the plan is too easy on me. However, I do trust the judgment of those on my mentor list. Would you be willing to be placed back on the list? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You know that I value your contributions here far more than I care about our past disagreements, but the role of your mentors really does need to be clarified; at the very least, is is passive or active? I've always been happy to help anyone who asks for my help, but I'm most definitely not any kind of policeman. If I were in your position I'd try to recast my plan into a form showing what I planned to do or not to do, not what my mentors were permitted to do to me. I'm just commenting from my own perspective though, so don't take anything I say as gospel. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to compromise. It is far less harsh and demeaning than User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom / User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom. I have tried to incorporate suggestions of the others. Sections such as Behavioral rules and Coping techiques are meant to address what I will do. I have to trust in my mentors to do right by me. From the reactions to Tony1's charges at I hope whatever plas this is works, I feel that my mentors will be fair. What do you think I should modify? I really hesitated to put punishments in there, but I did so to compromise with my critics. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I hesitate to rock the boat, as it appears that your plan is likely to be acceptable to the arbitrators, which is all that matters now. My concern is really that you don't perceive yourself, and neither do others, as a naughty child that needs to be watched and may need to be punished. Basically all I'm saying is that I want to be sure that you emerge from this with your dignity intact. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I trust my mentors and would be especially confident in them if you were willing to be added back to the list. I feel my dignity is intact. I did make errors in the past, I admit that, and I do not intend to repeat them. But I am editing basically as I always have, just avoiding articles by certain editors. Since it is a small group, that is easy to do. Plus, just in general, I am not doing the FAC editing I used to do. I prefer GA anyway, except for editors/articles I especially like. Do you see it otherwise? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see it otherwise; there are certain editors I avoid as well, and I'm quite certain we all do that. Perhaps your plan could be as simple as continuing to do what you've already been doing since the ArbCom case started, and simply outlining what that is? I don't know any more than you do about how ArbCom works, perhaps even less, but so long as you're happy with your plan there's no problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That is essentially my plan. I don't feel "crimped". So, are you declining my invitation to join? I think it is a congenial group. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not declining your invitation. I'm just reiterating my view that the group should not have a monitoring role; that's something I point blank refuse to get involved with. You have a bunch of good people you can call on for guidance and help when you feel that you need it, and hopefully you think I'm one of those, but I don't want to get involved in discussions about sanctions and all the rest of the bollox that will inevitably surround your plan. I'll support you just as I would any other valuable editor, whether I'm on your list of mentors or not. Or even, dare I say it, whether I'm on your "plague list" or not. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I don't think it will devolve to that, but I understand your point. I do consider you a person I can call on, thankfully. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute! You are NOT declining! That means I can add you? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions at case proposed decision talk page

Mattisse, I've posted some questions here. If you could find time to answer those and contact the people you have listed on your plan, that would help move the case forward. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Naruto Uzumaki

This article has already had some good work throughout this years, but has not been nominated to GA due to minor doubts about grammar. A user has already made some copy-edit, but there are still. Could you check it up if you have some free time? It's a bit longer than Yahiko's article, but it seems to have been worked more in prose. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is Ling.Nut

• Here is Ling.Nut. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My advice, for what it's worth

My advice, for what it's worth, is to remove the section you've added about "aspersions cast by Tony1". I can see that you firmly believe in the truth of what you're saying, but it's really sending out the wrong message IMO, or is at best open to misinterpretation. Some may view it as a getting your excuses in first, for instance, a reluctance to accept your own responsibility for events. Sometimes it's best just to bite your tongue. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. Yet aspersions cast on me is the basis of almost the entire case against me in the Major Depression RFC, the ANI leading to the Arbitration, and the Arbitration itself. If this type of behavior was not routine regarding me, there would not have an arbitration covering my three years at Wikipedia based on only a kernal of legitimate incidents, which I acknowledge, but the preponderance of "evidence" was in the category of "aspersions cast by Tony1". His casting of aspersions, although without merit, are repeated over and over by those editors vested in my down fall, then taken up and reiterated by their affiliates/cohorts. Even after the entire legitimacy of the original aspersion is disproved, no one bothers to look into the facts afterward. This is a very serious situation and is the core of my problems on Wikipedia. If it cannot be stopped, if people cannot be held responsible when then cast aspersions, as I have been, then this whole arbitration has a double standard and is hopeless. That fact may as well be acknowledged now, before we waste any more time on it. Have you ever really gone through the reams of evidence against me to see if it was valid? Those that have, like SilkTorn, see that largely it is not. Did you know that RFC1 and RFC2 against me were entirely without merit? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The important issue here is the impression you're giving of how you react to such perceived injustices, and an unwillingness to let the past be the past. How long ago was RfC1, for instance? Don't offer people rocks and them complain when they throw them at you. Nothing can change what's happened, but you can at least influence what's going to happen. I'm just offering my opinion though, perhaps others may see more merit in this apparent refusal to let bygones be bygones than I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the general point is well taken. I am willing to let bygones by bygones, but are others? To answer your question, RfC1 was 2 1/2 years ago, but it was the trigger for the arbitration because Cirt's AN/I thread that provoked the Arbitration used it to prove many RfC's had not solved the problem of me. This resulted directly in me being blocked indefinitely by Tznkai, and in the Request for Arbitration by Durova, and by several editors to show I was incorrigible. Are you saying that it will never be used unjustly again? Or that Tony's aspersion will never be used against me? Should I not dare, in the future, to ask for reliable references on an article talk page in case the editor flips out and characterizes me inaccurately, and Tony or someone like him wants to use it against me? Perhaps it is just too risky. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm simply saying try to be bigger than those you believe are holding grudges against you, not the same size as them. My block log is not infrequently used as evidence against me, and in particular of my alleged "incivility", but do I care? Not a whit; I just consider those shallow enough not to examine the facts to be twats hardly worth bothering about. And if I may say so that's got to be the way forward for you as well. Who cares who said what when? You can't change the past, I can't change the past, but maybe we can help change the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. The problem with keeping your ammo dumps in full view is that they occasionally get blown up - in all sense of that ambiguous phrase :-/ If you have concerns about someone's approach towards you, it's better to keep your notes safely on your hard drive.

The, as Malleus says, you can get credit for being "bigger than those you believe are holding grudges against you" - but still ready to zap them if they give serious trouble. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As my hero Oliver Cromwell is reported to have said: "Trust in God, and keep your powder dry." Personally I'd said, "... but keep your powder dry". --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

People seem to come up with stuff I can't find anyway. I have enough trouble keeping track of My plan and the arbitration links. I have nearly 3000 pages on my watchlist. I can't feature keeping things on my hard drive. My life is complicated enough. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had a lot, perhaps too many, at 570 on my watchlist. Time for a clearout? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned it out a little just recently. I would have to actually remember things if I cleaned it out more. Some pages I would not know how to find if they did not crop up on my watchlist. I'm always sorry after when I remove one of those. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm more often sorry when I don't, like WP:ANI for instance, but each to their own. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have that kind of thing on my watchlist. If I'm being discussed there, I will find out soon enough. Also, I checked and I only have 1900 on my watchlist. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Signed up

A minute ago --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I was on my own very happy to have been of any help to an editor of more than estimable character face some of the often unreasonable criticism you have faced more than once. With luck, those sorts of situations won't arise again, but I would be more than happy to be of any use to you again. And thank you very much for the barnstar. I noticed that there was one specific award you have not received, which seems to me to be a very unfortunate oversight on the behalf of the community.

		The Purple Star
		Very few editors have had to face the kinds of extraordinary abuse that you have faced. Even fewer stay with the project here after facing such abuse. You have the thanks and respect of myself and several others for the character and courage you have faced in those situations. Thank you for continuing to be an invaluable contributor. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Mesoscale convective system

I made comments on the GAN page three days ago, which haven't been responded to. I need clarification concerning one of your points, and if I have satisfied your other concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! I have taken care of this. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
• User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
• Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Updated to include notes present in final decision, per potential confusion below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I hope that the above confusing summary of the arbitration case does not cause you concern. I think the final decision is fairly clear, and you should read that in order to understand the outcome, not the above. (I've commented on the potential confusion here.)In any case the arbitration case is over with a fairly sensible outcome in my view. I hope you will never need to return to arbitration again, and that your plan will enable you to enjoy the pleasure of contributing to Wikipedia, while easing the stress that this sometimes involves. Geometry guy 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear whether there is more that I should do. Is there? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's over Mattisse, nothing else you need to do. Just go about your normal business now. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That's good. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I think that's just about as good an outcome as could reasonably be expected. Now let's all get back to work. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler

Fowler&fowler has stated his willingness to be one of my mentors/advisers.[3] —Mattisse (Talk) 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hurricane Arlene (1987)

There are very few sources available for it so what's in the article is all I could really work with. I've responded to your comments on the review page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. That was quick! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Plan

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at RegentsPark's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Jacklee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

== Talkback ==

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at RegentsPark's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Boulton

I think I've cleaned up what you were concerned about. "Manufacturer" is no longer used in place of "Boulton" and I got rid of a bunch of the uses of his name, substituting generally "he". Would it matter if he was an author, seamstress, or astronaut or something else shorter than manufacturererer?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is just my opinion but I do not like any alternative terms for the main person the article is about. In one of your California politician articles, your referred to the same person as "the attorney", "the Californian" (despite there being other Californians and attorneys in the article), "the political strategist" etc. I do not find other articles on people doing this. I may be wrong, but I find it confusing. It always causes me to stop and think: who is being referred to here? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but then I got people complaining I was using the name too much. Rock and a hard place. I think it comes from me writing one sentence at a time, and my seventh grade English teacher always said, have a subject in your sentences ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Boy, I was all settled down with a glass of wine to polish the Nixon election articles, and maybe start on Khrushchev, and then this comes up. Well, I don't think it's that serious. But it could delay promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't thing the objection is significant and you have five supports. Perfection is not an achievable goal. However, god knows who has a figure on the scales. I'm having my glass of wine and awaiting my books. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I'm found a great stress reducer is to edit on the French or Spanish wiki. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my Spanish is not idiomatic enough to pass ... hopefully the bio of Nikita will come tomorrow. I have everything else.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the theory of evolution? And what transportation? Agree with the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin was in the group. I have been copy editing Darwin articles lately, like Origin of the Species. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of this. I copyied the rest of the phrase from the Industrial Revolution article. But also look at the Industrialization article. It is ridiculous to assert that Boulton was a major driver of this. Best to remove the implication. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Erasmus Darwin, actually, but I guess he presaged his grandson's work enough from what I can see. Plainly there are different views of what drove the industrial revolution. If you read what I wrote, I refer to the engine driving it, not Boulton. I think it is right. Causation chains are difficult to deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he did presage his grandson. The Watt engine contributed to the Industrial Revolutions, but so did an enormous number of other things. To say one engine, one version of the steam engine, "drove" the revolution is a massive statement. However, if you want to root around in industrialization articles, to provide your point, be my guest as they say. I feel this is a red herring in the article, but if you feel it is worth holding up the article to "prove" this point, that is your choice. I feel that Boulton does not need this extraneous baggage to be an interesting, notable, historically interesting person. A creative businessman, yes. Did he personally design the coins, develop the processes etc. or did those that he hired? I say ditch the hype about driving industrialization, unless you want to immerse yourself in the history of industrialization in Britain. Personally, I do not think you will find anything. "My view" - disclaimer! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I may make it clearer that it is opinion. You are correct, how do you say in a myriad of factors which "drove" and which didn't? And no, Boulton didn't design the coins. As near as I can tell, he waved the wand. He may have done designing of the machines, but he made almost nothing with his own hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not clear how much he actually "designed". He saw the potential in the design and he encouraged Watt to do it. But mainly, it appears to me, he was a business man who fascilitated others to do the designing necessary for his business. Therefore, how much should the article get into proving he "drove" anything. Even the pictures of the designs suggested are not "his", and therefore unnecessary to the article, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He designed things like the mint machinery; Watt designed the engines and I think Boulton helped make them practical by designing the processes by which they could be made. Anyway, I think you are right about the Industrial Revolution. I can't definitively say that the machines triggered, or drove, or whatever, the Industrial Revolution, and so the article shouldn't say it. I've left a comment on the FAC page. You keep me honest.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It's only for your own good! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what they told the tomcat before his operation! Anyway, I think nothing more is going to happen tonight, so I'm getting some sleep.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Idea for project

You know, you keep telling me to look for another Speer, and I think I've found one. I was reading a book about Khrushchev's visit to the US in 1959, and he seems to have been a very conflicted character. He ended his career, in retirement by writing his memoirs against the demands of the KGB and having them smuggled to the West to be published. As it happens, I am going to Moscow in August, though I doubt it will be much help to the article. But he could be incredibly charming, and he could be a total jerk. Might be worth doing, though I'd have to get in a fair number of references.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds promising! I don't know much about Khrushchev other than he was always portrayed as a lout, banging his shoe on a table. It stands to reason that he must have been a complex character as he headed the USSR during a complicated time in its history, a time that in retrospect should probably be re-examined in light of what happened later. In reading various articles on Russia, I always am learning things that I did not know.

Perhaps Khrushchev had an interesting relationship with his wife, as I remember her being mentioned in an era when wives, never mind Soviet wives were not showcased. And there must be plenty of material. I did not know about the autobiography. Dasha by the Black Sea? I know little about the complexities of Soviet politics of the time. My brother sent me a book on recently released files on Cuba, including the Cuban missile crisis and the relationship between Castro and Khrushchev then. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently he was allowed to keep two homes, a dasha, and a house in Moscow. This was unusual, usually when Soviet bigwigs were retired, they either (ahem) died, or else were forced to be an "ordinary citizen". I'm not sure where the dasha was. At least according to the book on K's visit to the US, which has an afterword, he was very remorseful about his role in Stalin's crimes, and when his grandson was asked what his grandfather did in retirement, he said, "Grandfather cries". And when he came to America, there was an unprecedented media frenzy. I'm going to start looking for good references. I don't know that I will start serious work until I finish Boulton and get the Nixon election articles out of the way. But I have a good feeling about this one. As for the wife, she was rather outspoken for a Soviet wife, from what I could see from the book I read (most were thick in the body, thick in the head, and spoke about as much as a wooden doll).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I got several books on K at a used bookstore I favor. I really saw no point in buying any bio before 1991, though, I would consider a bio that lacked access to the Soviet archives hopelessly out of date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I think the Taubman book is a must. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they had it, but as I had already ordered it by mail, I didn't buy it of course. But it is likely to be the book most heavily relied on. Thanks for the support at Boulton. With a centennial date six weeks away, I nommed it faster than I should have but I think it is all working out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have all the books now except that key biography. I've also been giving some thought to Liberty Bell in the spirit of the holiday, but there is surprisingly little written about it. As for books, just some kiddie books and something from 1910 which is utterly unusable.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All I know about the bell is that there was some discussion about the crack causing it to deteriorate a while ago. It is a icon, but not like the flag. I have the key biography ordered also. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

According to the web, some Americans in London picketed outside the foundry a few years back with signs WE GOT A LEMON and WHAT ABOUT THE WARRANTY? They were told that the foundry would be glad to take the bell back, so long as it was returned in the original packaging ...--Wehwalt (talk)

Would make a great DYK, depending on your "web" sources. Article name: "Liberty bell warranty". —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

The funny thing is that I didn't even know that Hispanic Americans in World War II was in the main page until I checked my "watchlist" and began to wonder why are so many people editing it. Remember the tough time I had with the "FAC"? I was stressed out. I also want to thank you for helping me gain my 50th DYK. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember all the problems we had, so I was particularly gratified to see it on the main page, and on July 4. A triumph! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Izzat Darwaza GA

Greetings Mattisse! Thanks for passing the article. I still need to clarify his position on Arab nationalism and Islamism within the Biography section, which I will do in the coming days. Anyhow, to reply to your last note, I could add a list of selected works if you think it's a good idea. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Are any of his books still available in libraries or for sale? Have any of them been translated? Since he was an important writer, it seems like mention of the most notable works is appropriate if they would have any meaning or relevance to an interested reader. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if his works have been translated (I'll have to confirm if they are or not). If they haven't been translated would that render them irrelevant to the article? The great majority seem to be directed strictly to an Arab audience, but again I'm not sure. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WorldCat lists only foreign language editions here, but that wouldn't (I think) make them irrelevant to the article. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I passed it on to the article writer, encouraging him to list the major works. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I will list them now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its important

Dear Mattisse, How are you? Its me Samir. I am in great need of rewriting a journal article to improve its English, can you help me? Its 35 A4 pages long. Let me know by sending an e-mail to mohammadsamirhossain@yahoo.com please. - SamirShoovrow (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied by email. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check the mail again and reply.Shoovrow (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have sent the article by e-mail. Pls start as soon as you can, please!Shoovrow (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Was I too harsh on him?

[4]--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Without going through all your comments one by one, I asked you to review the article because you are an expert in law and I respect your opinion. I have written a variety of Supreme Court cases articles having to do with mental health law, my area of expertise, but I was always aware that I was not a legal expert. I learned a great deal from reading one of your previous reviews of a case. I appreciated your expertise. I am an advocate of Wikipedia articles on subjects relating to my profession reflecting a profession level of writing and knowledge. I don't think you need worry about having the same expectations regarding legal subjects. You are performing the function of educating on legal matters. I think people in general misunderstand court decisions and your expertise is of benefit. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I have gotten him to change his mind and resume work, and I'll take pains to be gentle but strict.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note

Mattisse, I have added the article myself in my talk page at the last part. Please try to edit it for language.Shoovrow (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I am so sorry to say that I cannot do it. The subject is not one with which I am familiar nor am an expert. It would take me weeks to do and I would not be confident in the results. I apologize to you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank youShoovrow (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it!

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For being there, whether it's editing or being there to talk, a calm person in this wikiInsanityWehwalt (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your plan

Good luck with it. I've always maintained that you're a massive asset to the community - to have you solely a massive asset to the community will be tremendous and I'm impressed with the way you worked things out. Once more, a heartfelt good luck. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Second that, and congratulations on the purple barnstar. Don't know enough about the issues that have been going on and you've clearly now got a system in place, but if you do ever want an outsider to review and comment on interactions just contact me and I'll be glad to do what I can. . . dave souza, talk 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your supportive comments. All in all, the arbitration was a surprisingly positive experience. Coming up with a plan gave me insight into my editing pitfalls. I feel on much steadier feet now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I heard about the plan over at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Single#Arbitration report and took a quick look at the plan itself as it's rare for an editor to propose their own remedies. It was a bit of a shock as it covers so much stuff that's hard to change overnight. This was followed by awe as it's obvious the Arb commitee and admins have put in hundreds of collective hours thinking about this case. I head over to your user page to leave a note and see why the time is worth it. If you get to a point where plan-A is discouraging then here's a plan-B. It is to take many wiki-breaks. I've come to realize their are many thousands of diligent editors; maybe it's hundreds of thousands. I take breaks knowing the odds are every single article is in good hands. Best wishes for you on and off Wikipedia.

ps: I love that alluvial fan picture you have as your current home page image. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Polyozellus (a fungi)

Thank you for your thoughts on my experience. The plan looks overwhelming but it really boils down to "don't get caught up and disengage instead"; as you indicate, nothing is that important that emotionally-based editing is appropriate. Your plan-B is very good. I feel ArbCom's solution was thoughtful and crafted to be constructive. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In some ways the alluvial fan picture looks like Polyozellus (a fungi)! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks

Hello, I was wondering what the status of the Featured Article Review for this article is, since the review page is named 'archive1'. Is this active? --macrakis (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is active. The 'archive1' opens up automatically when a FAR or FAC is started (or 'archive2' etc.) It is a new way the FAC people have started using that makes it easiler for them to archive after the process is over. Since an archive is already opened, they don't have to "archive" it when it is closed. Hope that explains it. That's the best I can do! Anyway, the FAR for Names of the Greeks is open and active. Please contribute. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronicle of a Disappearance review

Hey Mattisse! I've come to inform you that, unfortunately, I probably won't be able to work on the article as I had planned and the original nominator has still not returned. I don't what the procedure is here, but if nothing is done before the expiration of the hold, don't hesitate to fail the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In an unrelated incident, my home internet access has gone on the blink so won't be able to work on Coral Reefs until a replacement part arrives. Should he back online within a week, in the meantime thanks for your continuing efforts to improve the article; dave souza editing from a public library as Davesalterego (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Kangchu system

A few minor lapses aside, I think you have done a very good copyedit job for the article which I have since amended. Perhaps you may want to take a look at the article one more time before endorsing itas GA? Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have revisted it. Nice job? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I just read the solution to the arbcom case you just endured. I admire the fact that you proposed that, that you went through all that and you're still here, and that you're willing to change regardless.I dream of horses (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill's Resignation

Hi, Mattisse, I think it's time to withdraw now. Admittedly trading of insults between Giano and you is probably not ArbCom's greatest concern right now [ :-) ], but you'll get brownie points for walking away. It looks like the Council idea is already dead, so there's nothing worth fighting about. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Philcha, walk away now, you've said your piece. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that there are different standards for different editors, and that Giano is immune from normal standards.. Besides, he is a member of the "special committee" appointed by ArbCom. Given that reality, that he can cause an arbitration against me, I will take your advice. Thank you for pointing out the reality of Wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point Mattisse. The point is that getting down and dirty with Giano will do you no favours, and neither will calling for Kirill's head. Let it be. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not calling for Kirill's head. Please stop implying that I am. I asked for an acknowledgement of poor judgment only. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Mattisse, whatever you say. I'll just leave you with this, something that I keep coming back to, but keep forgetting:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

--Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Malleus, Are you willing to remove Giano's ad hominem attack on me?[5] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  This ad hominem serves only to indicate how sour is Giano's perspective. I've no idea why he is tolerated, but the best approach, in my view, is to ignore him. Geometry guy 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  No, I am not, and neither would I remove it or ask anyone else to remove it had it been said about me. We need to learn to be a bit thicker skinned around here, less of the "personal attack" nonsense over a bit of name calling. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree as well. Admitting to mistakes is not easy: such admissions should be received gracefully. Kirill may have made some good faith mistakes, just as you have Mattisse, and indeed we all have. The "special committee" is not going to happen, and was never intended to cause arbitration cases anyway. Geometry guy 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I never asked for Krill to resign. I asked for him to acknowledge a mistake. Giano is not just "tolerated", he is asked to be a member of the "special committee" by ArbCom. Along with Joopercoopers, whose edit analysis shows that Giano's page is his second highest edit;[6] and who justifies Giano's behavior.[7] What is going on? Actually, I am learning from this. Just tack "behaving" on a statement and you can say anything. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not try to learn from the bad behaviour of other editors. Geometry guy 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a person selected for the "special committee" by ArbCom and defended by another member of the "special committee". What am I to think? Please do not ask me to be irrational in the face of evidence. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All I've seen is people asking you not to trade insults with Giano. Nobody's asking you to be irrational, simply to be dignified. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On another issue - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Question_on_arb_presence_on_ACPD_by_Casliber - you are right and here is a place to evaluate positives and negatives of me being there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattise, you'd better stop pursuing "catch Giano's personal attack" for your own safety. Once you said the comment toward Krill that is perceived as "distasteful" by many, the people would automatically recall your ArbCom probation.--Caspian blue 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you threatening me for complaining about a personal attack? My arbitration said that those who attack me are also responsible. (Quoted from my arbitration)

:* Would note here that some behaviour by others has not helped. Sometimes Mattisse was not the instigator. -Carcharoth

• Tend to agree with Carcharoth. We're not laying all of the blame on Mattisse. -Cool Hand Luke

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I really am begging you to step away from this. Whatever the rights and wrongs may be this spat is going to harm nobody but you. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Mattisse, I just advised you for your own safety because I know many people who are agitated there, would lash out at you if you continue to do so. Please have good faith. --Caspian blue 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing in bad faith. Yet I was personally attacked. Why am I not safe for complaining about a personal attack? Why is the personal attacker not only allowed to personally attack me, but get "chosen" by ArbCom to be on a "special committee" to advise ArbCom. Please explain the thinking here, as I really don't understand. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'll try this for one last time. Please let your advisors fight your corner and withdraw from the discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on Mattisse, what you were talking about with me, you're caring too much. Let's just step around the block for a walk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) (And only because I was drafted as an advisor/mentor). I have no idea who Krill is and why he/she is resigning but - Matisse, it is almost always better to step away once you've said your piece and almost never makes sense to keep pushing things. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I did not advocate that Kirill resign, despite all the hoopla saying that I did. My subsequent statements were all in defense of personal attacks on me, and not advocating anything else. I had though that arbitration would reduce this tendency of others to personally attack me for no reason. I see that it has not. Rather, the arbitration is being used as a reason that others are allowed to personally attack me and a reason that I cannot defend myself against personal attacks. It is used to threaten me, so that others are allowed to personally attack me with impunity. It just reduces my desire to edit articles. So be it. I thank you for commenting though. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This first test of your plan is not going well Mattisse, time to take a break. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And, it is rarely necessary to react to 'personal attacks'. Give it a miss and settle down with a good book instead (I just finished Land of Marvels by Barry Unsworth and, despite the weak ending, strongly recommend it!). You have more than enough people on wikipedia who respect your contributions to have to defend yourself each and every time. Always focus on the positives! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• For what it is worth - I found Giano's comments tasteless and equally applicable to him. Don't take his bait. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comment is especially worthy as you are normally a defender of Giano so your comment is more meaningful. Truly, I am grateful for your acknowledgement. I never requested anyone to resign. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Matisse, without prejudice to the rights and wrongs of it, I've removed Giano's description of you[8] as it's really of so little consequence and is apparently causing behaviour from you seemingly out of all proportion to the action. The sage User:Geogre is fond of describing the internet as populated by eggshells armed with hammers. Your eggshell is supposed to be cosied by your mentors. Would you please talk this through with them, and let them act on your behalf? Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Joopercoopers just gave very good advice. In situations where someone is attacking you, think carefully and preferably consult your mentors. I suggest that in general (life will always throw up exceptions):

• If you have actually made a mistake, even if it's minor and affects only a small part of the issue, apologise up-front. That may cool down the issue. If not, it helps to make you the good guy and your oponent(s) the bad guy.
• Stick as far as possible to the content. Text that focusses on your feelings would make you look over-sensitive and / or arrogant, and would help your opponents in 2 ways: by showing that they've hurt you and encouraging them to continue; and by distracting attention from the real issue(s), which they tried to avoid by attacking you.
• If the attacks are persistent, by a gang, or really severe, consult your mentors. Whichever of us you consult will probably look, among other things, about how to bring the attack(s) to a sharp halt. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Principles describes principles that apply to all editors equally, and a brisk reminder plus a hint of the consequences of ignoring these principles will make attackers think twice. --Philcha (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Matisse, be strong here, anon ips like me are rooting for your success, along with your mentors. 74.66.17.162 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattise, I've just seen your 3 most recent contributions to the "Advisory Council" discussion (all in section "Not about governance") - firm but concise, constructive and level-headed. When you're good you're very very good :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OTOH I don't think you should follow up on your "The bad humor, nasty behavior, groups of entrenched editors supporting each other, may be reflective of the way thing have always been done", which has left you vulnerable to being lured into a trap. If someone asks for examples, I'd suggest e.g. "These problems are so widespread that it would be unfair to identify just a few of those who have been involved in such conflicts". Unfortunately you still need to be a little more cautious than the average editor. --Philcha (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, thanks for the suggested wording, if asked for a follow up. I thought a lot about posting that comment before I did. There is always the tension between expressing a fundamental belief I consider important to the dialog, or out of fear, saying nothing. I appreciate your advice. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Losing heart

Hi, Matisse-

Thanks for dropping by my talk page with your encouraging but rather cryptic message. I've searched and found you are in a mediation yourself with an editor who is not only allowed to be rude, but supported if not incited to be so. What a shame! How sad for Wiki! For myself, I'm not going to press on to try to make people abide by the rules. The education is in realizing how very human the Wiki community is. "Truth is fallen in the street."

I see you are a Personage...but still get no respect. I've dropped the nonsense on the talk page of the Richard Sternberg article. Why lower myself?

On a more constructive note: What's a Wiki copy editor? This is news to me. Wiki has a great deal to admire. Yopienso (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council

Ignore who turned the council down. Focus on who the council never asked.

I, for one, was not asked. Malleus was not asked. I assume you were not asked? Was Iridescent? It seems that Tony1 may have been asked (the statements are vague). I am sure others can speak up. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asked, though, given the whole Matthew Hoffman ase and a willingness o speak out when I think they've acted badly, perhaps it's understandable, given that they wouldn't want someone pointing out all their injustices and wontonviolation of the NPOV policy. (e.g Scientology, where having a view = topic ban)Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I want to know the process entailed in the selection, or non selection. I agree that both of you would have been an excellent members, as I do believe in your impartiality, although I do not always agree with your points of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Really it does not matter a lot/jot who was asked. The questions are: was this thought through, what is the purpose, what kind of editors are needed, and why? The impression of a fait accompli has left a lot of editors (many well established) with a sour taste in the mouth. Arbcom was doing really well until this. Geometry guy 23:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I was feeling good until this. It is unclear who is at the steering wheel of this proposal, and what is their investment in having this "committee" whose duties are undefined and the selection process of which is unspecified. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the thinking behind this move, and I'm keeping an open mind, I'm absolutely certain that you've got nothing to worry about personally Mattisse. That six or seven or however many members took part in your ArbCom case isn't really all that surprising, as lots of editors did. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true. There were "key" editors, and those are on the "committee", plus one who "turned it down" allegedly–one third. So you thing it is a "coincidence"? Name those who were more key. It is enough for me to lose my new found faith in ArbCom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus is completely right to keep an open mind and a relaxed perspective: that is what is best for wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Mattisse. If they dared to do anything like that there would be hell to pay. But they probably know that and wouldn't bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Joopercoopers second most edited page is User talk:Giano II[9], also on the "list". I don't think the names on the list are independent from each other, aside from the issue that two of them are already on ArbCom and presumably know the agenda. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[10][11][12] Not an encouraging group. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good News

Good news, though small, for you in your e-mail account. If you have anything to say, say it by e-mail please.Shoovrow (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Back again, so much to do!

Thanks for the note, am back now. While offline I did some more research and have now made some additions to The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs as well as tweaking some of the improvements you made, and adding alt. captions for the pictures. More info to come on Publication and subsequent editions and Reception. There's also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1 to pursue, only one commentator so far, maybe because I messed up the talk page template. Perhaps something to notify the relevant project about. Also have to get my mind into gear to reach out to Yopienso, but have to go out first, to get the shopping done. So much to do! . . dave souza, talk 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, Philcha has come up with some strong points, rather than mess around with the article I'm in the process of trying out ideas at User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids. Any comments welcome, but it's still a work in progress and I'll aim to alert you when it seems ready to go into mainspace. Sorry about the setback! . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where has Philcha commented? I can't find his remarks. But if you intend to rework the article, perhaps you should withdraw it from FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Initially on my talk page, and in draft form at User:Philcha/Sandbox/ FA rev draft - Fertilisation of Orchids. It's rather like responses to FA comments, if you think it's getting too drastic I'll withdraw it, not sure about how to proceed. Must cook my tea, back in about an hour. . dave souza, talk 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, at User talk:dave souza#Proposal for action I've proposed steps to revise the article for the Fertilisation of Orchids - FA review issues, as shown at User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids. Hope this meets your concerns, particularly with regard to keeping the quality of writing and focus on Darwin's approach to experimental science. Any comments welcome, and if you can copyedit it at all that will be hugely welcome. You may of course prefer to wait until it's in mainspace. . dave souza, talk 17:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will take a look and am happy to copy edit it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Since it's now near midnight, I've completed the move to mainspace, so Fertilisation of Orchids is now revised as proposed. Your copy editing will be much appreciated, hope you find it's not too bad! . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there was repetition of the "big book" on variation to give continuity from publication of The Origin to the start of Botany as recreation, so I've reorganised it to keep it all in the latter section. Also, sadly, found that "confounded cocks, Hens & Ducks" was from Oct. 1861 so left it out. Added more citations to secondary sources which I used for these changes, and rationalised some other citations.[13] . . .dave souza, talk 13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)