User talk:Mattisse

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

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 15 16 17 18

Talkback at User_talk:Tohd8BohaithuGh1

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Tohd8BohaithuGh1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy Holidays

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

talkback

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

Journal sources and GAs

Mattisse, thanks a lot for your support over at DYK. On an unrelated note, I was just wondering... I'm working on slowly expanding the Neurolinguistics article, keeping GA in the back of my mind, but I'm concerned over the fact that right now almost all of my sources are from within the neurolinguistics literature—journal articles and chapters of edited volumes, rather than like reader-friendly intros and websites. (I can't blame anyone else for that; they're all sources that I put in the article, since the article didn't have sources when I first started working on it.) So one concern is that most of the refs are offline; I might be able to alleviate that by tracking down links to at least the free previews of most of these articles, but that still leaves the other problem, which is that they are not really "mainstream," and some reviewers might consider them primary sources. I guess at some point I can do some googling and just look for random websites to add to the sources, but it's hard for me to trust any of that stuff since this is what I study and these sources are the literature I'm most familiar with. At some point I think I'll need to grab some non-specialist editor and ask him/her to help me out by reading through the article and telling me what parts are too jargon-y or otherwise not clear. In the meantime, though, I was just wondering if you could clarify for me how much of a problem the current sources are (or will be, whenever this eventually goes to GAN). Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm looking at it now and checking out the references. This is not an area I have expertise in, but it looks legitimate. I put the citation bot on it, so the doi links will make examining the references easier and also finding new ones. Happy to help you out on this, as I have been distracted by various shenanigans of late and appreciate something else to focus on! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the citation bot's edit; thanks for that! That completed in one fell swoop about 75% of what I thought I was gonna have to slave over for hours! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

United States Civil Service Commission

Mattisse:

I'm a novice editor (have been working on fixing typos mostly), and I have decided to expand the stub article you created during my holiday next week. I'd appreciate it if you could keep the page on your watchlist, and advise me if I put a foot in the wrong place while I'm expanding the article and placing citations and references. Thanks! --StaniStani 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create that article, but I am certainly willing to help you out in any way I can. I don't know much about the subject, but I will put the article on my watchlist. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit history was unclear, at least to my eye. I appreciate the help. I've been fiddling with the Wiki code, and it's time for me to contribute in article space. --StaniStani 07:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What part of the Wiki code are you having trouble with? —Mattisse (Talk) 07:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not having trouble with code, just need more experience in markup and citation work, so decided to work on a live article, and picked a stub with no controversy. I admire the work you've done in main article space. --StaniStani 09:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials

Thanks for your note, and for your help and support. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting request.

I feel slightly nervous about asking this, but figured it was worth a shot. Currently an article I've nominated, Revolt of the Comuneros, is at FAC with a few comments but not many. User:Karanacs issued a weak oppose based on prose concerns, but isn't up for going through the whole article himself; I asked him about the issue on his talk page, and he specifically recommended you as a good copyeditor. Would you be willing to take a shot at the article and see if there are any further problems that could be fixed?

Just to be clear, don't feel obliged at all; Wikipedia is a volunteer project, I can ask others, etc. That said, I'd certainly appreciate anything you can offer. SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I will give it a try. I do not know anything about the subject matter, so feel free to change anything I do. Unintentionally, I may change the meaning. I am assuming you have addressed the specifics already brought up on the FAC, so that your concern is more general issues? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look. That said, if you feel you don't have the historical background, then I can certainly ask other people.

As for your initial comments... the bit about the lede I'm not sure I follow. I'm fairly certain that the lede *does* summarize the article pretty accurately and is the short blurb version you might see in a less in-depth work. Do you have any particular complaints about it? (The only one I can think of was that Karanacs wants the phrase "with the deaths of the other heirs" taken out, which I'm not sure of yet myself.) As for other information in the Origins... interesting comment, because I was worried that others might complain that the section was too large. The origins section is already pretty large - necessarily so, IMHO - and with the article already fairly long, I'd really be hesitant about adding in more background. Is there something that you thought should be included in particular? Or even a general area you felt lacks enough context? Would some kind of link to the history of Spain/Europe in the early 1500s help? Not sure what seems to be "missing" here. SnowFire (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll describe to you an example of the problem I encountered. I read the lede, which was fine. Then I moved down to Origins. Immediately, I had to start referring to the lede in order to under stand what Origins was talking about.

• This is the first sentence in Origins. "Discontent had been brewing for years before the uprising." - What "discontent", where, and before what "uprising"? This section should stand on its own, and the reader should not have to refer back to the lede to understand this section. The lede "summarizes" the article; it does not supplement the article. Therefore, every section of the article must stand alone without the lede, and everything in the lede should be more fully explained in the article.
• Although I frequently copy edit articles with content unfamiliar to me, the article must address the "general reader". Usually, as I copyedit the article, I learn the subject matter also. This must be possible for the general reader, as an article cannot expect the reader to be familiar with the names, history, country etc. described in the article. This article, while very good and containing important content, is not accessible to someone like me, who would like to know the history the article describes, but gets too confused in trying to figure it out. This problem can often happen when editors are so familiar with the material that they lose perspective of how the article may read to someone who is not.
• As I said, if I weren't feeling so overwhelmingly tired and had sufficient time, I might be able to figure it out. Even tomorrow, I may have new life. I'm not meaning to be discouraging, as the article obviously contains important content and is a potential FA. I want to be informed about the events in the article. Perhaps tomorrow will be another day! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm. Yes, the rest of the article should stand on its own, but I mostly disagree with your comment. The discontent is described right in the next paragraph; that was just the opening sentence. And the uprising is obviously the subject of the article, which if there's one thing that can be taken from the lede I think would be it. I've changed "uprising" to "Revolt of the Comuneros," but I really doubt that there would be confusion on that matter.

As for making articles accessible to random audiences, I can only wholeheartedly agree. Some things will inherently be "well, if you want to know more about this, click on the link," but I do want the article to flow well regardless of whether the person clicks for further information. In fact, I've been arguing just that on the FAC page on a few topics, since I think readers unfamiliar with a topic are aided by things like short sections or repeated wikilinks (since it's not obvious just who random Spanish name X was again). Same with moving some interesting and catchy material to captions. If you have any further comments about topics that seem unclear, definitely bring them up. SnowFire (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you would not be happy if I copy edited the article. You have a way you want the article, I can see from reading your reactions to comments at the FAC, which is fine. However, that is not a good atmosphere for a copy editor to enter, as I would not want to ask about every change I make. You would end up being unhappy with what I do, I fear! Good luck though! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Slow response on my part (didn't notice you'd replied), but thanks for looking it over at all, and it's no problem if you don't want to copyedit it.

As for discussing matters... well, yes, that's what makes a better article though, right? When I worked with others on copyediting the article before even bringing it to FAC, it was a back and forth endeavaor - we'd chat about each section over IM and discuss what worked, what didn't, and which sections were phrased that way by accident and which ones were intentionally set up that way. I understand if you're not enthusiastic about it, but I hope this isn't too common - me disagreeing with a potential change doesn't mean I'm dead-set against it, as this is a wiki, after all. Just some random philosophical thoughts. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not trying to offend here :)

When I was more active on Wikipedia, I don't know how many requests I submitted to AIV. It helped me learn more about the blocking system and how the sysops will work when blocking. Realize that a user must receive three warnings in one day for general vandalism. Only rarely when large amounts of text are deleted at once and it appears the user is on a rampage will a sysop block without ample warnings given. Hope this helps for future reference :) Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The warning are misleading in the rollbacks then. I will not bother anymore. I am nowhere near willing to spend that amount of time as you are suggesting to become sophisticated enough to manage a successful report! I try to protect certain articles but I can see that reporting will be a useless waste of time for me. Thanks for your reply. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A vandal account doesn't have to have been warned three times in one day; persistent vandalism across multiple days is also grounds for a block, as long as the vandal account has been warned sufficiently. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the vandal, User talk:207.28.249.114 had received 6 warnings in December 2008, including 2 final warnings, but my report was turned down for the reasons above, for vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 So, I think all of this is over my head. I'll leave it to others who can figure it out! Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually it is better to have the warnings on consecutive days (6 warnings in 3 days would be plenty of notice); otherwise we run the risk of the IP having changed "owners", and this particular owner not having gotten the warnings before. It's a tricky process; it's okay to keep filing AIV reports and let the admins act on them when they think it is time. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Since I forgot to unwatch the vandal user page, I just notices that he was blocked after all after my report. So, its confusing. I think vandal reporting is not my strong suit. Thanks for clarifying. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: DYK

Hey Mattisse, I'm sorry to hear DYK is getting complicated. To be honest, now is an unlucky time to have gotten started again, because for several days that guy has been going around pissing everyone off and just in general making it not an enjoyable place to be; things seem to be winding down, though.

As for nominating articles to DYK, you don't need to use the template if you don't want to; right now it's purely optional, and there are a good number of nominators who have chosen not to use it. If you don't want to use the template, it's pretty simple to just add a new section and then add your nom like normal, something like this:

====[[Example]]====
* ... that this is an '''[[example]]'''?  New article, self nom. ~~~~

As for using the template, you basically just copy-and-paste it in to the top of whichever subsection you want (whichever date subsection, that is) and fill in what blanks you can. I made this a while back, which was intended to be a copy-and-paste example that would show up when you go to the edit window...it hasn't been adopted, but maybe you'll find it helpful (or maybe not):

Then, as for reviewing noms... as far as I know, you don't need to know anything about the template to review the noms. When you click the section edit link for whatever section that nom is in (assuming you have section editing enabled in your preferences), the template will be at the top of the edit window, and the discussion below; the discussion just goes on like a regular discussion at a talk page. Since all the discussion is going on down lower, there's not really any need to edit the stuff in the template, so you probably don't have to worry about messing things up. And all the other stuff about the new bot and everything you can totally ignore; that all goes on after a hook gets chosen and moved into the queue, and if you're not interested in that you can just focus on reviewing noms, checking sources, rewriting hooks, etc. (which is pretty much what I have been focusing on lately), and for that stuff you don't need any technical know-how.

Anyway, that's all I can think of right now...we're still working on trying to make the template more user-friendly, so hopefully things will improve soon. If you ever have any questions about how stuff works, don't hesitate to ask! And I can give you a quick tutorial in my sandbox about how to use the template and stuff, if you'd like (although it's only optional, and if you feel more comfortable just doing stuff by hand, old-school, that's perfectly acceptable too). —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! I know I just happened to step in at a really bad time. I would like to do the AlT hooks, reference checking etc. as that is the type of thing that is easy for me to do, like copy editing. And for the time being, I am burned out on writing articles. Maybe in a few days, if things die down there, I will give it a try.

I see you have been working on the Neurolinguistics article. The article already seems much improved. (I only knew a little about Transcranial magnetic stimulation as it is effective in some recalcitrant Major depressive disorders). I noticed that you are thinking about doing a "spinout" of the experimental design section. I am very much interested in experimental design in general and have been thinking about trying to write or upgrade some of the articles on statistics and experimental design in a way that is understandable to the lay person. Such articles would be helpful for wikilinking to in scientific articles, as there seems to be a general misunderstanding about the scientific method vs. "truth" on Wikipedia! Thanks again for your response. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think having experimental design articles is a good idea. In this neurolinguistics article, for example, it's hard to know how much to write about because it's sort of straddling the border between linguistics and experimental science...a lot of the stuff is just about brain imaging and stuff like that, which some might argue is more appropriate in a more general article than in this...but, on the other hand, the imaging techniques and experimental designs are geared towards measuring language-related stuff rather than something else, so it has its own linguistic flavor to it (for example, there's all kinds of special experimental design stuff people do to have fMRI studies of language, since the MRI machine makes so much banging, which can really mess with trying to measure auditory processing of language..... plus, a lot of the "subject tasks" written about in the article right now, such as acceptability judgments and probe verification, are mostly just to keep the subject from getting bored and to make sure they're reading/listening attentively, which is probably not as big a deal in some other fields)—so it's not purely about linguistics, and not purely about scientific methodology. Which is why it would be nice to have a series of articles on experimental design in various fields...then we wouldn't have to worry about going into too much or too little detail (ie, the worry of people coming to the neurolinguistics article and thinking "I care about language bla bla bla stuff, not about how the stupid MEG machine works!") and can try to find a better balance between the experimental techniques and the field-specific subject matter. For example, I wouldn't be able to say much about most fields, but I could do a bit in stuff like Experimental design in neurolinguistics and Experimental design in acoustic phonetics...people who know about stuff like physics and biology and medicine and other fields would be able to do "Experimental design in X" articles for that, etc... and in the end, we could put them all in a category! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 02:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a philosophical divide about this. In Major depressive disorder FAC, I argued strenuously, and ultimately fairly successfully, that the article should be limited to the diagnostic classification itself and related material. The enormous "history" of depression was pared down, existential ramblings on the nature of alienation were ultimately removed, and the biological basis was enormously beefed up, but this made me the largest contributor to the article, when at the beginning of the FAC, I had 0 contributions!

I have noticed in doing FAC and GA reviews, that some subject areas, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones etc. have developed a bunch of sub articles describing related technical terms, so that when they write an article, rather than having to describe these terms in the article, they can just wikilink. I developed many such little articles for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia:WikiProject Law and some for the India-related articles. I am thinking of doing something similar for science-related terms, those related to methodology and statistics, so in writing these article wikilinking could explain some of the rationale behind the scientific method and decision-making. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Paraectamol toxicity GA

Hi there, thanks for doing the GA review for Paracetamol toxicity. The changes you made were also really helpful, I appreciate it, Thanks again. Mr Bungle | talk 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

An offering

		An olive branch
		Just so you know there are no hard feelings about our disagreements, I offer you this olive branch of peace. If I came across to harshly at any point during any of my (long-winded) disussions, please believe that it is because of a sincere interest in improving articles and keeping them solid. I know that your goals were the same. All the best. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I realize you are a good writer and do not question your motivations. I know I have higher standards than many GA reviewers. So I thank you for the peace offering and I do not have hard feelings. In fact, today I supported Edgar Allen Poe for the main page on his 200th anniversary. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's agree to disagree. I'm bordering on incivility in continuing my arguments (and, I admit, it's very easy for me to show my frustration). I'll stop adding anything to the review page now, because I'm making myself look like a certain Richard. I think you were really able to kick me in the butt to make some great additions and changes on the article. Now, if you want to make me less frustrated, you'll avoid my number one pet peeve: misspelling Edgar Allan Poe. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I copied it from a Wikipedia search to at least get it to be a blue link! Look, failing a GA is no big deal and in no way interferes with the progress of the article. It will pass in a flash when you list it again. And you already have improved it immensely. Further, I understand getting upset here on Wikipedia. I believe that you will take my comments to heart. (If you perceive these people you are writing are in such a spiritually elevated state that no method of dealing with (what is charitably being referred to as) "misbehavior" is necessary, then what can I say? Social control is a fundamental feature of any society, and any society must have a means of enforcing norms. One book "Brook Farm: Its Members Scholars and ... - Google Book Search". describes Transcendentalists as being all intellect and emotionally bereft. Perhaps that explains the lack of sexual passions and other human emotions that typically cause problems in any society. What do you say. (I have always been suspicious of them, ever since I learned that bit about Thoreau going into town every day!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in defense of Thoreau, don't misconstrue what he was doing for two years, two months, and two days down by that pond. He never said he wanted to live off of nature alone (i.e. hunting/gathering), but that he wanted to build his connection with nature. Poor guy gets a bad rap! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Going into town every morning defeats the purpose, however he got his supplies. I think he could regularly do without human company for more than one day—necessary to build a spiritual connection with nature, if he were serious. My idea of building a spiritual connection with nature is to backpack into the Sierras or the Everglades and go for some days or weeks without seeing people. So it is not a bad rap from those of us who are not afraid of nature! A hopeless elite! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I don't see any problem here (and by the way, it wasn't "every day" but more like once a week). His real goal was to "simplify, simplify" and to "live deliberately". Have you seen his recreated cabin? He was certainly "roughing it" so I give him his props! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just giving you a hard time! I thank you for introducing me to Brook Farm as I had never heard of it before and found it quite interesting. I may even write a (somewhat) related article. (Maybe Thoreau should see my "cabin", as at least his was on land!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The Orphanage review

Thanks for helping! Feel free to edit as much as you want! I'm not the best writer in the world. I'll try to expand and fix the areas you asked about. I have one quick question, what did you mean by the "technical aspects of the film"? Also, the only thing about the genre choice isn't so much an effect on the film as that it's why they decided to write the film, so it's just part of the screenwriting history of it. Could you re-phrase these problems? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it that closely yet. Perhaps what I mean is the genre issues. I know that you like horror films and with Eyes Without a Face, you added much interesting detail about the horror elements and clarified some issues with very good information. (I can't remember specifically. I will have to look, but I will let you know.) Do you remember the changes you made to Eyes Without a Face? They were very good and greatly added to the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember specific changes. They were sort of there before the review started. I've dug up all the interviews and items on The Orphanage as I can for now. (it's hard to find interviews for a director who doesn't speak much english. :)). So I've got what I can. I've fixed all the other problems too I believe. Care to re-read when you have the chance? Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help again to bringing the article to a GA class! More coming eventually! Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It is a pleasure when an article is both interesting and well done. I look forward to your future articles! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny

Well I thought I would tell you that Lockdown's FAC has been restarted. I'm informing everyone who said anything in it before the restart.--WillC 05:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. I thought you were at the end of your tether already! I suggest, from deep down in my heart, that you take the advice that editors suggest on the FAC, regardless of whether you agree. Pare down the background section and spin off the rest. Put it in your userspace until you determine what to do with it. You can't get anywhere resisting the suggestions given there. (This advice is meant to be of help and not to criticize you.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It is just, I don't understand what the problem is. Would you leave out a cast member from a movie because they didn't do much but where a key member of the movie? No. I just don't get it. The match happened at the event. It got three months of build. All the matches at the event besides two got more than four weeks of build, which is usually the main event's build up. The main event got build on two major things for near two to three months. All I hear from people is: well the article should not be long because it will turn away readers from wanting to read it. Though no one ever thinks: maybe they want to know about all the matches and not three. I have that argument with alot of people from the wrestling project, though they don't watch TNA and think it is like WWE. Sorry to rant. Near 8 months or built up quietness is starting to come out because that is how long I've had to hold it in with people saying it is too long. May to now, I'm going insane. Well, thanks for the advice, I'll take it into consideration. I'm about to just re-write the background. I've been thinking about it for a while now, and maybe I can find a better way to explain things after I read all the Impact reviews leading to the event. Not sure if I'll do it though, but now seems like a good time to do it.--WillC 05:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You have to do what they say. It is not particularly rational, it is just the way the game is played at FAC. It is very rigid and the outcome determined by a few. If you want to do it your way, then don't go to FAC. At FAC, they determine the rules, however meaningless. It is sort of like if you applied to be a deputy sheriff, you can't say you smoke marijuana, whether you do or not, if you expect to get the job. FAC is all about getting along with them. It is not a place to stand on principle or "truth". You have done remarkably well there, to even reach the point of a "Restart" instead of being tossed aside, like most. So, it is your decision to go through all that again. But if you do decide to, there is little point in doing it the same way as before, or you will get the same result. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to do as they say but I hope people will see my point. If not, then I guess I'll have to put my pride aside and do as I've done before; remove stuff I believe is needed.--WillC 06:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Don't look at it as a matter of pride. It has nothing to do with that. It is how you play the game. Just like football, or whatever. A move that is made out of pride will not win the game. (Well, maybe in wrestling it will!) —Mattisse (Talk) 06:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Well nice talking to you.--WillC 06:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Look at it this way, at some time in the future you will be the "father" of TNA at Wikipedia. But to get there requires one step at a time. Personally, I think it is huge that you have gotten as far as you have at FAC. You can be very proud of that. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "father". That is too ownish. I accredit myself more as the delegate or something along those lines since I'm the only one who expands TNA stuff. Lockdown is more a stepping stone. I plan to make a FA Topic with all of TNA's 2008 events. Lockdown is just to know what an FA is. From there I'll work onward. Thanks for the compliment though.--WillC 07:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it doesn't matter anyway. It was over already. I await to see your vote.--WillC 03:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see: Requested move. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:FA congrats!

Thank you for the kind words. I know it is in part to your copy editing and support. Thanks for the help. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Re: Live Prayer

Yes, I plan to stick around. I've been editing for quite a while without registering an account. --Chimro (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. I find the article interesting and will add some comments to the review page. It will be at Talk:Live Prayer/GA1. I will add comments in a bit. In general, the article looks pretty good. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mattisse, I am seeing the talk page at the Kannada literature article now. I shall attempt to fact-check as part of copyedit. I normally understand copyedit work to include more or less fact-checking in any case. Although you haven't mentioned it, disputes grieve me, and it's my instinct to seek to disintensify such things when I see this intruding between other editors. I won't commit to any DR role, since processes appear to have been initiated in that regard; however, informally and incidently, I'll be scrupulously neutral, eirenic and sensitive regarding that side of things.

It's an outstanding article from what I can see, and some of it is actually relevant to my real life research. I actually have professional reasons for fact-checking the earliest dates. The Sangam literature is directly relevant to my own work. As you can imagine, where Kannada literature may overlap with this I will be very interested indeed.

Thanks for your note. Best wishes. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Memories are made of this

[1] Arbcom mems - oh what a (favortism) year!

that meet up video

• [2] - the ten-year old

• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1

Talk about not addressing the issue!

Don't forget to include the link to my response to you. Risker (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk about not addressing the issue

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which!
Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. I would say nada. The question of favoratism was never answered by you. Posting a link to your page here of my post to you somehow does not address that. Sign me Confused, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Christmas

Merry Christmas!--WillC 07:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

MDD

You just made changes here:

Although the relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, it appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. In such cases, patients may be unaffected by therapeutic intervention. ref: Harvnb|Barlow|2005| pp=227-28}} < --this is from old textbook-->

First question: What does the first sentence mean? I read it: Although the relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, [the relationship between sleep and depression] appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. Does that make sense? To me, this particularly strong relationship seems undefined and meaningless.

2nd question: The ref appears to be from 2005, not 2002 as in edit summary.

3rd question, while I'm at it: I don't see what the [who?] is questioning. - Hordaland (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Answers

This is the original sentence in the article that I changed, that was referenced by the textbook:

The REM sleep stage, the one in which dreaming occurs, tends to be quick to arrive, and intense, in depressed people. Although the precise relationship between sleep and depression is unclear, it appears to be particularly strong among those whose depressive episodes are not precipitated by any obvious factors. In such cases, patients may be relatively unaffected by therapeutic intervention.

This original sentence has been in the article for months, but has always bothered me because it is vague and because it is referenced by an average-level psychiatric textbook. (WP:MEDRS says textbooks are not adequate references.) Therefore I tried to shorten the sentence and remove some of its vagueness. Coming after the specific researched-based information in the article, as that sentence does, referenced by recent research findings published in review articles, on the relationship of specific brain systems to depression, and to the effectiveness of antidepressant medications that impact the same brain systems, as also to research on the manipulation sleep cycles as well on the effectiveness of light therapy to treat certain types of depression, which also involve the same brain systems, this vague sentence seems particularly irrelevant and clumsy.

I apologize if I changed the sentence in a way you do not like. You, of course, may restore the original sentence quoted above.

As far as the year of publication, I am sorry. I must have mistyped. The is meant to request a more specific reference that could hopefully clarify the meaning of the sentence as well as provide a higher quality reference for it. Frankly, I think the sentence is misleading and possibly untrue for the purposes of this article. I would like to see some evidence for such a vague sentence.

Please change as you see fit. I have worked hard over the months to improve the quality of this article and the references, but I am getting tired and losing interest—especially as it takes so long to load! Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It was not my intention to criticize your edit; sorry if it looked like it! I agree entirely that the statement in the middle sentence is vague. In fact, so vague as to be meaningless, as I suggested above.

I wonder if the sentence about REM is important to the article ("tends to be quick to arrive, and intense..."). If not, I think the whole paragraph in your blockquote above could just be deleted. I'll suggest that on the talk page and see if anyone objects. - Hordaland (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

REM it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't remember REM info "tends to be quick to arrive, and intense...") as particularly of note. It is not routinely asked about in a clinical assessment, for example, or mental status exam. Without something more substantial than that vague mention, I don't see the relevance of throwing it in the article without some follow up. Obviously sleep in general is important, and that is mentioned and referenced. I recall that some types of antidepressant drugs increase REM sleep, but there is no reference in the article, and that is considered a "side effect". Personally, I don't think the statement adds any solid info and its removal would not lessen the relevance of any information in the article. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What?

I'm confused. I was talking about the 15 opposes I got based on my using the term "for shit" on my talk page. What did that have to do with you? Maybe my brain is still fogged, but I'm not clear why you are offended. You have been a great help and I have no wish whatsoever to offend you. Please respond either here or on my talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wehwalt: "I was willing to overlook the number of times he has questioned my good faith or honesty, but indirectly soliciting 3RR backup [3] compels me to oppose at this time." (Maybe I am too sensitive!) Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Since no one took up Sandy's cause and AuburnPilot strongly defended me and you, I saw no need to say anything. I was told that anything that the candidate says during the RfA process is potential fodder for the opposes. That is why I was very choosy in replying to the opposes. I had no idea you were offended by my not replying, and I thought I made it clear after the RfA closed that I valued, and value your contributions and, well, wikifriendship greatly. Frankly, I was about to ask you for your help, I'm planning on bringing Rudolf Wolters at the least up to GA standard. I'm not sure the material is there for FA, but at least to GA. What is there now is garbage (I've started some work).--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly will be willing to help you. I was being oversensitive. Sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad. Thank you. I am sorry if I did not catch on to the fact that you were offended, RfA is a difficult process. Sandy went so over the top on her drama that I think she scared off potential opposes who just didn't want to be associated with the drama. Anyway, on Wolters. Next few days, I'm planning to bring in material from the Speer bios. I could use online sources, photographs, anything like that, as well as copyediting and advice. Basically all I intend to keep from what is there now is his vital statistics and bibliography. Sereny is probably the best source for Wolters, I will be drawing heavily from her book on Speer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is taking shape well. One problem is that it is hard to make avoid making it another article about Speer.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear why the relationship between Wolters and Speer became embittered. I am gathering, from what you have written, that it was a one way street, and that Speer held something against Wolters. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

From the way Speer's biographers present it, Speer took Wolters for granted and failed to show very much gratitude for all Wolters had done for him. In addition, they disagreed over Speer's taking responsibility; Wolters felt that Speer repainted the past to make the points he wanted to make. There were other things as well. I'll detail them all when I get to that part of the story which should be tomorrow. I've ordered a copy of the Schmidt book because he actually interviewed Wolters directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will be about Wolters' view of Speer, if that is Wolters primary reason for being of interest. (Was he much of an architect?) Perhaps some exploration of how Wolters managed over the years to remain loyal and only at the end became bitter. Although his disillusionment over Speer's failure to take responsibility is a reason, somehow to me there must be more. You said he continued to support him after the trials. And he had to have known Speer as a person enough not to be that surprised at Speer's behavior. How did he go along with what was happening all those years himself, I wonder? (Regarding the RFA, I wasn't offended that you did not respond, as I agree that not responding is the best policy in those situations. I was just very surprised at the change against me, and could not understand how what I did could be construed that way. So for a while I was confused and fearful of making posts that may unintentionally harm someone. It was a little scary that someone was monitoring my posts to such an extent that such a post would be used to insinuate I was doing something unethical.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he was more concerned that Speer was slanting history the other way. I've added a couple of paragraphs to the post release section. Sandy almost certainly had my talk page on watchlist, or else when she found out I was going for Admin, she went through my talk page with a fine tooth comb looking for dirt. We had a lot of disputes at TFA/R and at Natalee Holloway. She doesn't like me, though she is sucking up to me now, just in case, I think (I am not ambitious and wasn't even interested in being an admin, frankly, I'm an article writer). She wasn't monitoring you, she just leapt on it with glad cries, and as I've pointed out, went way over the top. There are a lot of vultures hovering just in case SHE ever decides to run for admin, it would be a bloodbath!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Slanting history the "other" way? You mean minimizing what happened? If that is the case, that is indeed interesting. It would make for complicated historical dynamic. (I would be very much against Sandy running for admin, as I perceive her as too biased, protecting those who are "hers" and inexplicably trashing others who, I guess, have not toed the line.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the latest quote I put in there, he's mad at Speer for demonizing Hitler.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

All the basic info is in there. It needs a lot of polish to be easy on the reader's eye and mind, but it is basically complete. My mind hurts.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Will look at tomorrow as too tired tonight. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pallid sturgeon

Thank you for reviewing the article I started.--MONGO 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not good

Mattisse... edits like this one just are not good. Not what we expect from seasoned contributors. Way too blatantly assuming bad faith and needling a fellow contributor. I've not followed your contributions closely but I'm not liking what I've seen... as I commented at Che, your approach may not be suitable. At all. I think you need to revisit it. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I am just way too tired of this editor following me around and accusing me of underhanded dealings as she did in the RFC of User:Wehwalt and other issues. I am quite aware she has a network of email alerts and other "alerts" of those who "step in". I guess you are one of those. She has nothing currently to do with Che Guevara so it is reasonable to expect her to just stay away and stop refactoring my comments so that they are out of context and rendered meaningless to the other editors of the article. Is this really a "big deal" in the scale of things on Wikipedia? Hard to believe. But if it is, I am on the edge of quitting anyway, as this sort of thing is beyond worth hassling over. As the person in question is so "busy" that she registers numerous complaints about her work load, I think it is reasonable to ask that she just leave me alone. Please let me know if this issue is so important that it warrants a message to me from you. If it is, then I am out of here. With all due respect, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)