User talk:Mattisse

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

If you post on my talk page I will answer it here. Thanks!

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Post to LessHeard vanU re Arbitration comments on your behavior & lack of understanding of basics

[1] I noticed you removed it from your page, so I will post it here.

• Arbitration comments from link give below and the comments in quotes:

"Please note:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators in which your # Gross incivility by administrator LessHeard vanU which evidence suggests was not an isolated incident. Also misuse/misunderstanding of the term "vandalism". I'm concerned by these basics. However valuable a forthright manner may be, civility is expected of all users, especially administrators. Hopefully LessHeard vanU can take note of this necessity as it's meant, a reminder."

Since LessHeard vanU has been involved in all my recent troubles with User:PalaceGuard008, User:Cyborg Ninja, User:Zeraeph and User:Blueboar, I understand now why I had so much trouble in these situations through LessHeard vanU's "help". Mattisse 15:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would draw your attention to this on my talk page, noted and responded to merely a week and a couple of days before you posted your variant. Hence, "old news". Seeing as you are incapable of recognising any detail that does not fit into your unique perception of events I am not even going to bother with the piffle that concludes your comment, above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessHeard vanU (talk • contribs) 16:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Link for my memory [2] and diff [3]

Sorry, LessHeard vanU. It is just that there is no sign that you have learned anything. You are one of those Admins that does not actually create or edit articles, so it is hard for you to see issues from an editors point of view. Mattisse 17:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I recommend that you let this drop now. You will do better to take the high road and let it go. ArbCom had their say, and continuing to raise this will not bode well for you, unless there is a new problem with LHvU. And in case LHvU is reading, his response to you above wasn't exceedingly civil or helpful, although I can understand that he may feel that you're continuing to poke him about this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Mattisse 23:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fred's unblock

Which user's unblock were you referring to here? [4]

I'm not interested in furthering any investigation into Fred's conduct, but I'd like to help you to resolve your qualms about him if possible. --Tony Sidaway 23:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. However, to find the block would require that I make the effort to go find it for, as you point out, no outcome. The unblocking is only a tiny issue relative to the whole of what has transpired. And, of course, any unblocking can be justified even in very equivocal cases, as I have observed. So, what would be the point? I have my opinion of Fred, based on the Arbitration experience plus one year of observing his continued interaction with the person who brought (or rather in whose behalf the sock puppets brought) the Arbitration case to begin with. And, by the way, sock puppets have continued to turn up, a couple just recently. Fred has an ongoing interaction with this person and choses to be oblivious of this. As you say, Fred can do what he wants. Thanks anyway. Mattisse 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC Arbitration page

I'm reaching out to you and asking that you reconsider striking your comments on this page. I too am just an ordinary editor who's been here for a couple of years; I know how disappointing it is to discover that the 'real' Wikipedia is not the Utopian one of legend. It's my belief, however, that if not for folks like us speaking out on issues we believe in, logically and sensibly, the Wikipedia experience here will continue to degenerate for us and for others. It was very reassuring to see your words on that page, to know that another editor had an opinion similar to mine. Believe it or not, there are a few Wikipedians who listen, and some of them are even administrators. Please reconsider your strikethroughs. Your voice is respected. Risker (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've probably been 'involved' with Wikipedia for too long now to fully understand what it feels like to feel like you are on the outside looking in, but I do remember for the first few years struggling to come to terms with the way things really worked. Voices like yours are a breath of fresh air and are sorely needed. Please don't retreat from that discussion. Your voice is as valuable as anyone else's, possibly more so. And for the record, I've only been here a year or so longer than you, and for much of the first year I did little editing. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have thought very hard about this but I cannot reconsider, as much as I would like to support a fellow editor. The whole thing is too ugly and depressing. It is not as if anything good will come of the Arbitration or that I can contribute anything of value. Yesterday made that clear, if there was any doubt, as well as the "value" held of my opinion. The Arbitration has revealed much about why my two years here have been so unpleasant and I will take it all as a huge lesson learned for me. Regards, Mattisse 23:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Contentious editing of Insanity

Hi, there, I hope you're well. There is an editor to the above article who has removed sourced material. I'm not an expert so I'm bringing this to your attention in case you want to express an opinion. Regards --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the page, specifically removing the section on Mitigating factors. Insanity is never a mitigating factor. I also put some requests for citations for the last section which, at least to me, is confusing. I am not sure of the specific issue you are referring to. Could you point it out? Regards, Mattisse 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It was this diff, but I see it's since been reverted. There was a comment on the talk page explaining why it had been removed which, frankly I didn't understand; up to you if you wish to keep an eye on it. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Guilty pleasure

Hi, an article you've edited, Guilty pleasure, has been nominated for deletion. It's AfD nomination is here. --Loodog (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me if it is deleted. I agree it is an unsourced definition. Mattisse 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Elin Lerum Boasson

Hello Mattisse, I saw your tag of unreferenced on Elin Lerum Boasson. Just a friendly notice to remind you that when you add a tag to an article also add the date. I'll use an unreferenced tag as an example:

{{unreferenced|date=February 2008}}

Thanks! If you are to reply please do so on my talk page. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

clarification please?

Could you please clarify your placement of this {{unreferenced}} tag? Your edit summary said:

(→testimony - unreferenced section filled with opinion statements)

Are you saying it wasn't clear that this section was based on the transcript on page 88-96 of this .pdf? Did you read those nine pages?

If you have the time to read the transcript I would appreciate you looking at this section again, and spelling out which passage(s) you think are opinion statements.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. What I meant was that the section is filled with statements that take a particular point of view but are not footnoted so the reader does not know where to look to verify whether these statements are true or not, per WP:V and WP:RS. Regards, Mattisse 14:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Uvs Nuur

Hi, I hope you're not trying to make a point by removing all information about the basin from the Uvs Nuur article? It is entirely reasonable to include information on both the lake and the basin there, but I don't think your original edit made sense in context. Or are you planning to create a seperate article about the basin? --Latebird (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We have been through this discussion before. I believe you were the one that suggested renaming the article to basin on the talk page, as the general name of Uvs Nuur is vague and covers differing area, depending on the sources you consult. However, if you do not want to change the name to basin, then I feel very strongly in the interests of clarity (since the subject to many readers is confusing,including to me when I first started looking into it), the references to "basin" should be removed. The basin deserves it's own article. I have worked, in general, to match World Heritage Sites with the names of the articles corresponding to them, as there are vast mismatching common here. It does not make sense otherwise, and diminishes the encyclopedia. If you want, we can have an RFC over it, as I feel strongly enough about these disparities between World Heritage Site names and Wikipedia article names to settle this once and for all. I will abide by any RFC outcome and desist my efforts to match World Heritage Site names with articles if that is required. Regards, Mattisse 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If you check the talk page, you'll find that I didn't suggest renaming the lake article to basin. I suggested merging the two articles that previously existed, because they essentially contained the same information. The result is, that the article now contains information on both topics. My editor note on my first revert was thus technically somewhat inaccurate, sorry for that. As long as there is not enough specific information to justify a seperate article, including information about the basin in the article about the lake is the natural thing to do. If you find a good way to split the topics again without creating too much redundancy, then you'll have my full support. But removing valid information just so that a heritage sites list doesn't need to link to a slightly different title sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Such formalisms should not override common sense. --Latebird (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict}:::On the question of "sufficient information", I think that is because Uvs Nuur is a vague term. That is what I gathered from combing through what sources I could find, a the term does not always include the same elements, depending what you consult. Often it is used very loosely, which I don't think is helpful. I would, as I said, prefer to have an article that directly addresses the World Heritage Site use the WHS wording and perhaps the creation of other articles as required. I know I have spent many a day on other World Heritage Sites trying to figure out which Wikipedia article their listing is referring to. Somethimes the name is completely difference, as editors tend to use local names and it can become very confusing. Also, I am hoping more information will emerge regarding Uvs Nuur. There are also ethnic and nationalistic conflicts over the terms, which is why, for World Heritage Sites, I would rather stick to the terms the WHS use. Mattisse 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There are also geographic articles that describe the area and archeological findings there and barely mention Uvs Nuur at all. I admit that some time ago I went on a crusade to up the visibility of the area and edited extensively these articles and created others as I attempted to work out my confusion. Perhaps this hindered. Mattisse 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How can the name of a geographical feature (the lake) be "vague"? If it is used in a possibly ambiguous way, then that's probably an application of "pars pro toto". Still better than the other way round in my eyes. In this specific case, I don't think that linking from the heritage list to the lake article will confuse anyone, but as I said I'm not fundamentally opposed to a split. What other geographial and archeological articles are there about the area? Or do you mean outside of WP? --Latebird (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must have been lying then about being confused, or else I am just dumb. It is a basin and only is a "lake" at times it has water in it It is a watershed area, what they call an endorheic basin. Anyway, I see you have merged many articles I wrote, so I think I will step out and leave the article to you. It's yours and I will not interfere. I was interested in the geographic aspects anyway and that has been muddied and/or removed. There are plenty of articles on the area I can work on that are actually more interesting anyway and more geologically oriented. Amazing though, what can happen if an editor turns his back for a minute and doesn't monitor an article he has been working on! (Hopefully you will take over every article I am involved in regarding the general area!) Good luck. Mattisse 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I merged many articles you wrote? Which ones? Actually, I didn't even merge this one myself. And if I happen to merge articles, I don't normally mind who created them, I just try to follow what I consider common sense. If you think you know better, why don't you present your arguments instead of just brushing my questions and suggestions aside, and acting generally hostile? Do you expect anyone to just share your opinions right from the start? I was already surprised when you talked about a possible RFC in your first response, before even trying to establish a meaningful conversation. I really hope this is not your general style of discussion. --Latebird (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope revert is not your general style of conducing edit discussions. Read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision. The arbs all agree that to use Revert as you did for a content disagreement is Reversion not a substitute for discussion - two different finding of this - reversion is basically for obviously vandalism only plus a finding of Pages are not owned which is obviously not your view. I certainly will not name any articles to you as I do not want them disrupted further. Mattisse 17:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And please read above for my opinion. Mattisse 18:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not up to wikilawyering today. Will check back later. --Latebird (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K. It would be nice if we could work this out. Mattisse 18:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, you can see latebird's recent edits here. While he has touched the article two or three times in the last days, he does not seem to have done anything of what you accuse him of. The merging was done by P199 and the redirect was created by Mikkalai who also moved Ubsunur hollow to Uvs nuur basin [5]. I was the one who put a merge tag on the Ubsunur hollow article [6] and retracted it a short time later [7]. I don't think anyone of us acted in bad faith. Who carried out all these changes are not particularly difficult to check, for me it is really hard to understand why you keep on accusing latebird. Should you suppose he is sockpuppeting, you could always ask the admins to check him. This would, however be a rather grave accusation and should not be thrown around lightly. Otherwise, I suggest you try and calm down a bit.

Regards, Yaan (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not accusing latebird of sockpuppeting. And I am not sophisticated in deciphering the #REDIRECTs and merging. All I know is that articles that I put effort into are disappearing (now I am keeping copies as I find they have been rendered inaccessible by this last round) and being merged inappropriately, from my point of view, and without discussion. I go to bed and when I get up I find another round of merge/redirect and an unappropriate disambig page (violating wikipedia's disambig page policies) has been created. I had not thought of sockpuppets, merely thinking latebird just did not know the subject matter well. But if more editors are involved, perhaps it is what they call meatpuppet. I do not know how to account for the stubborn insistence of combining/merging/redirecting without consultation -- which is against wiki policy. Mattisse 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, hollow as used in this case, is obviously not the same thing as depression or basin as it contains mountains and glaciers and such. The hollow was granted protection at different times than the basin, and the basin is incorrectly called Russia's first WHS. Mattisse 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose we discuss the meaning of hollow and incorrect statements at the article's talk page.

Regarding the redirecting etc. without consultation, it's probably just a by-product of WP:BOLD. I can tell you that I am not an alter ego of latebird, and I also really don't think the other involved editors are.

You can usually retrieve older texts of an article from the version history of the respective article (I think the only exception is when aricles get deleted). This does not involve more then a few mouseclicks, plus possibly a c&p, and (I think) is explained here. Regards, Yaan (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is against policy to #REDIRECT without proposing a merege. This has been clarified on AN/I many times. It is unbelievably inconsiderate. It takes a ton of AGF to believe in the fair motivations of an editor who repeatedly engages in such behavior. As far as retrieving old versions of the text, the #REDIRECT was done in such a way that the old text does not show up in the history so I cannot retrieve it that way. Fortunately, I began to suspect the motivations of the editor doing such repeated #REDIRECTS, so I copied it before the last #REDIRECT. As far as I can tell it cannot be retrieved from the redirect. Perhaps it was deleted, along with the edit history. I may complain about this. Mattisse 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This may just be a result of renaming the article, or the way inwhich Wikipedia redirects you. Where the older versions of your text here or here? Yaan (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you how you were able to retrive those diffs? I went to the #REDIRECT page and there did not seem to be a way. The previous version did not show up in the history. Mattisse 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You can go to Ubsunur hollow and land here (Uvs nuur basin page), then click on the small "(Redirected from Ubsunur Hollow)" just below the article's title, and land here,then click on the "history" tab and land here, and then you should be able to choose the diff you want.

I in fact first read the talk page and saw that P199 mentioned that he had merged the two articles, and then I looked at P199's edit history here. You can get there from the edit history of the discussion page by clicking at the "contribs" behind P199's name.

Mikkalai's edit can be found on the edit history of the page he moved Ubsunur Hollow to, i.e. at Uvs Nuur basin here (Mikkalai originally only moved the article to "Uvs Nuur Basin", with capitalized 'B', and another user moved it further to "Uvs Nuur basin"). Yaan (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It is so obscure that it is not something I could ever do on my own. It is very devious, in my opinion, and makes wikipedia a very unpleasant place for people like me. I believe I will complain about this, probably to no effect, but why did User:P199 get involved anyway? Maybe there is sockpuppet/meatpuppet going on, as the whole way this was done does not make sense to me. Mattisse 20:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The only thing you need to keep in mind is that, when an article is moved, the edit history is moved too. Re. P199, I propose you ask him. Yaan (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I could not find the history of all the articles (three) that were merged into that one article. Also, the names were changed so many times that I cannot find all the articles. Right now, I cannot even find the disambig page. Everything has been redirected/merged/deleted out of existence. As far as asking P199, I do not think it will accomplish anything, as any editor who behaves in that way is not going to give me a helpful answer. It is unfortunate that such editors exist here, but I know that wikipedia has a nasty element. Mattisse 21:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User:199 has a very unusual edit history that does not include any interest in the articles under discussion. His edit history does not show that he made the changes you attribute to him. Maybe you are mistaken. Mattisse 21:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should take a look at User:P199. Yaan (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. That is why I wrote you the above comment. Mattisse 21:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Uvs Nuur (disambiguation) was created by Mikkalai, and appears as (currently) the fifth entry in P199's edit history. It is linked to at the top of the Uvs Nuur page. It's late now, so don't expect any further replies today. Regards, Yaan (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. User:Mikkalai appears to agree with me so there is hope after all. Mattisse 23:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi Mattisse, could I convince you to use slightly more informative edit summaries? You seem to have a habit of writing "added text" or "added word" there. For someone checking the edit history, this hides more than it reveals. Ideally, the edit summary would include at least a keyword, summarizing what the addition was actually about. That makes it much easier to find a specific edit later, when trying to figure out who wrote what and in which sequence. As an example, this edit might benefit from an edit summary including something along the lines of "deities in tibetan buddhism". Do you see what a difference that makes when compared to a simple "added text"? If you start to study the edit histories more yourself, then the advantages will become even more obvious. --Latebird (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I will try for your sake. Typically I find the edit summaries of others either uninformative, or worse, misleading. So I try to be neutral, since a person can just look at the diff on the watchlist and see exactly what the edit was without any effort at all. But I will to do as you say. Mattisse 18:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Latebird, Mattisse... As I have begun following Wiki more closely of late, using my customized watchlist bookmark, I suddenly became jarringly aware that someone can perform 24 significant edits, label their last one as some sort of relatively non-significant issue, I can, even if I hit 'diff', miss out on so much and have learned to instead head for the topic, then for the history tab so I can see just what has happened.

And, being aware of this, I have now begun (should I have to go back and correct one or more minor issue(s) or error(s), to 'carry forward' what I have been involved in so when someone is browsing their watchlist, they can know better what they be interested in looking more deeply into..

Another way of looking at it, especially when you are adding to the talk page, is that your sometimes lengthy thoughtful and thought-provoking additions might possibly be totally overlooked, not read, by the audience you have in mind...

So while I have almost always used lengthy edit summaries, I now to take care that my additions show up well on watch lists. Spotted Owl (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have that javascript in your monobook.js? It will show the whole edit, even if it is several paragraphs long, just by hovering over the diff on the watchlist. It makes all the difference in the world - for a long time I didn't know about it. I find that many people leave extremely misleading summaries! Mattisse 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

a javascript?? my monobook.js?? Sounds great, but don't have a clue what that is all about. I will Google all that some day when I have time to tackle all this technical stuff. Is it maybe explained here at en.Wikipedia.org so I can site search? Thanks so much. Anything that makes my time here briefer gives me more time with my pup - she gets bummed out when I get settled down at the keyboard. Spotted Owl (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User scripts

This is the one I use Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle - extremely easy to install - just past into your monobook.js which the site links to yours for you. Doesn't work so well with all browsers though. I have Firefox, but with Internet Explorer, apparently it is not so good. There is Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Piles with all sorts, which I can't vouch for. It took me a while to figure out all the tricks it can do but once you use it, you can't do without! You could ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if you are in doubt. Mattisse 02:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

I have put this article up for FAC here [8]. SandyGeorgia suggested I invite you to review it. Many thanks (in advance). Fainites ^barley 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vogue disc.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vogue disc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Dear Friend, Long time no contact! How are you? Write to me at my e-mail address. I remember you often! Shoovrow (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I will write you. I just have been so very very tired. I have not forgotten and think about doing it every day. Just that it is so hard to explain. Mattisse 18:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand.

Neologism

You claimed waterwings was a neologism. Waterwings are pretty notable, as you can hardly go to a public beach or swimming pool without seeing someone wearing them. But as English is not my first language, I don't know if "waterwings" is the most correct term for them, or is there one that is in wider use. JIP | Talk 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

All you have to do is show the term "waterwings" is a word in common use per WP:V and WP:RS by providing some footnote citations to that effect. Regards, Mattisse 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I notice you tagged the waterwings article without explaining on the discussion page. Do you think you could add a brief explanation of why you tagged it, on the discussion page? Otherwise it's hard to see what needs addressing. Thanks. Skittle (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Üüreg Nuur image

This view in Google Maps shows both Üüreg Nuur and Uvs Nuur next to each other. It would have been trivial for you to check this yourself, instead of mounting unjustified personal attacks against me about it. Since you have in the mean time added the misnamed image to several articles without a good reason, please change all those instances to the correct image name Image:Uureg Nuur.jpg now, so that the old file can be deleted as it should. --Latebird (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop ordering me around and making decisions about articles in the last few days that have existed for a long time (and in which you played no role previously). You come in like the boss and make decisions and take actions without consultation or consensus. This is hardly the atmosphere if you desire cooperation from me. As far as I know, you are not the king and should obtain consensus before you make major changes. Mattisse 15:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you add images to articles that are clearly and demonstrably incorrect like in this case, then you'll have to expect that other editors politely ask you to correct your mistake. Or do you expect other people to clean up after you? Since the Google Maps link above proves beyond any reasonble doubt that your opinion is mistaken, no further consensus is needed here. Reality as documented by reliable sources always takes precedence. --Latebird (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop the badmouthing

Dear Mattisse, I'm not willing to tolerate your entirely baseless accusations any longer. The next time you make clearly incorrect claims (like the last time here), attributing statements and opinions to me that I never made or held, you will be reported for person attacks, uncivility, and violation of any other Wikipedia policy that happens to match the specific situation. What you're doing is systematically coming closer and closer to libel, which is no trivial matter. Please be aware that other editors and especially admins have no problem in checking the relevant edit histories and diffs, and I have no problem in providing them, so that any unsubstianted claims by you are trivial to document. My very long patience with your unjustified but exceedingly hostile behaviour is now over. Please get a grip on reality, provide diffs for anything negative you claim about me, or face the consequences. Thanks for your understanding. --Latebird (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)