User talk:Mattisse

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

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 19 20 21 22

• Quid pro quo list

Store Norske Leksikon

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

SNL "seal of quality": [1].

One good turn ...

In return for Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite, would you have time to look over the prose quality at Field lacrosse? --Philcha (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Answered on Philcha's talkpage. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind copy-editing, I'd be grateful. Otherwise I was on the point of failing the article on prose quality, despite its other virtues, because IMO the amount of help it needs is more than a reviewer ought to provide, in terms of objectivity. The editor is a nice guy, and knows the game, but has a tin ear for prose. If you do, give it a couple of days, as there are a couple of factual items that need to be clarified. --Philcha (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let me know when. Also, make sure it is all right with the editor. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a good time. --Philcha (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you done all the copyediting you intend to do on Field lacrosse? --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been off wiki for the last day or two and have fallen behind. Give me a little time and I can go through it today or tomorrow. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thaks, real life^sigh sometimes messes up my schedule too. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Matisse, I want to drop you a note thanking you for your copy-edits and comments regarding the Field lacrosse article. I have always noticed your work around wikipedia and appreciate your efforts. Thanks again, Mitico (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your thanks is much appreciated. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

LED displays are not the same as LCD displays

Hello

You have changed the category of a few articles related to LEDs from "Display technology" to "Liquid crystal displays". LEDs are not related to LCD other than that they are sometimes used for backlighting. Would you explain you edits or revert them? Regards Thorseth (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I will revert them if you want. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be allright, Thanks --Thorseth (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Critique

Hi there! Would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will inspire me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. I mean I haven't even copyedited it in a long time. Shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It is good to hear from you. I will try to offer a critique. I am suffering from Wiki-malaise, so it means I will have to get my ass in gear also, as I have not been doing anything Wiki-constructive lately. It means I have to Wiki-think! Will do my best. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual identity therapy

Hi, Mattisse, I noticed that you added the conversion therapy category to the Sexual Identity Therapy article. I'm not sure that the category applies there. I left a comment about that on the article's talk page. Born Gay (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think is OK with me. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice comment on my user page

Hi Mattisse,

Thanks for your nice comment on my user page, some time ago. I removed it, solely because the user page wasn't the location where I wanted to discuss things. But I appreciate your comment! Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ling.Nut.Public. It was extraordinarily beautiful, touching. Hope you are doing OK as a Public entity, and I miss your more frequent presence. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty). For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

2009 WWE Draft

Hi Mattisse, you've helped me in the past, and I was wondering whether you could copyedit the above article? Thanks.--Truco 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can go through the article. I have been mostly off line and it may take me a little time to catch up. I will go through it in the next day or two. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to do so! I really appreciate it, I just did a few fixes.--Truco 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Mattisse's Day!

Mattisse has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Mattisse's Day! For your enviable WP:GA and WP:DYK work, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Mattisse! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I am truly honored and it is very kind of you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hey, sorry I missed it! (I has a similar award on 21st, funnily enough!) Many thanks for adding your own encouraging words for DV. Geometry guy 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

War of Laws DYK

I can understand how it wouldn't be a reliable source, sorry about that.

Would it also follow that the sources from the source (The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Ronald Grigor Suny, Stanford University Press, 1993, ISBN 0804722471) are unreliable as well? Or can it be used as a substitute? Silverseren^C 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/soviet-union/history.html is also unreliable. But the others look good, so hopefully you can replace the sources. The article is interesting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, I suppose i'll just replace them. It'll take a sec. Does that clear any other issues with the article?

Update: Thanks for the footnotes. I am...notoriously horrible at making them. I rely on the Wikifey to do it. ...hmm...*frowns* I cannot find the references that source used for its information... Silverseren^C 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, try to reference as much as you can in the article. If necessary, you can use a different hook with information that is referenced. (There are tools you can use to help format references, if you are interested. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there is now a reference for the hook and the only issue is with another reference that has nothing to do with the hook and, thus, nothing to do with the nomination...are we good for now? I'm going to see what I can do to fix that one source, but the nomination should be able to go on while i'm doing it. (And, yeah, i'd be interested. :) ) Silverseren^C 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should get rid of http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/soviet-union/history.html, as it says it gets its info from wikipedia. I will look again at the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I should be able to find a reference for that info somewhere...Silverseren^C 00:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! It is a really interesting articles, as I did not know how all that happened before. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what researching a red link can do for you. :P I got a little more with another reference, but nothing to cover that paragraph and a half. It looks like it might need a couple of references strung together, since there's unlikely to be one reference that has all the information in it. Silverseren^C 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mars Attacks! GA review

Thanks for reviewing, sorry if I was acting strange earlier. I might have just been having a bad day. Anyway, I addressed your concerns for Mars Attacks! Good day. Wildroot (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your article passed GA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

you can help!

Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here or via my talk. It's for a project I have to do involving wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing if the information remains confidential and at no point is released in any way that can be identified with me. Your project sounds like it could be quite interesting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The project is basically a wiki version of "stages of seperation", as it were, mapping top contributors to a random featured article and then following each editor's top three edited articles and that article's contributions in turn. The location of each editor is just a minor bit of additional info I thought would be interesting to throw together (along with the number of edits to pages, article status/class, et al.) In terms of privacy, I would be putting your location next to your username, but I'm not planning on exhibiting the project in any wide way (it's my final project for an art school project and a dozen people would be critiquing it, and that's about it.) If that's still too much exposure, I understand perfectly. (If you're interested, I started with Bone Wars -> User:Firsfron -> Stegosaurus -> User:Casliber ->Major depressive disorder -> you.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a really neat idea, David. I hope everyone can get involved. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix FA and TFA

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to featured article status.

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to the main page as Today's Featured Article on 6 March 2009.

I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You are very kind! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another shiny medal

		The DYK Medal
		For going beyond verification of hooks by copyediting, fixing, and adjusting nominated articles. Your work is appreciated. Synergy 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I enjoy doing it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cotton Press (Tarboro, North Carolina)

• The second reference of this article (McDonald under the section "Exterior Features of Note") says "mules." I wrote oxen was possible in the article because another source mentioned mules or oxen. I will have to go back to see which one. Is the issue the "mules or oxen?" Or is it that you question "mules?" If it is the first possibility, I will check which one said oxen. I can always change the hook to "animal-powered." KudzuVine (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I will look at it again. All I care about is that the hook is correctly referenced. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the article to say "mules and oxen" The current reference 2 says "mules" and references 4 & 6 say "mules and oxen." I first wrote "mules or oxen" in the Tarboro article because I personally don't think that they were used at the same time, but this is a personal opinion. In case this does not solve it, a alternate hook is:
• ALT1... that the cotton press (pictured) near Latta, South Carolina, and another in Tarboro, North Carolina, are antebellum, animal-powered, handmade wooden presses? Thanks KudzuVine (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK! Put that ALT1 where the nomination is. Looks good. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have made the change. Thanks KudzuVine (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I fixed broken links. Mules are referenced in reference 3 (inventory form) of the Cotton Press (Latta, South Carolina) article under significance.

Homosexual transsexual

Thanks again for your work on that article. Hfarmer and WhatamIdoing have equal levels of capability as scientists (and equally high "IQ" according to their user pages), which can make it a challenge to explain to them why this specific term needs to be distinguished from the phenomenon it attempts to describe. Their training and abilities make them see the world in a very specific and similar way. I recommend checking out Ellen Feder's analysis here. Kenneth Zucker has been a driving force behind the shift in the DSM from homosexuality to gender identity disorder (especially gender identity disorder in children). He is the leading voice of reparative therapy of gender-variant youth and currently chairs the DSM-V group revising this category. They appear to be heading toward advocating trans subsets of homosexual and paraphilic-- we'll know more after the APA meeting in SF next month. Don't get me started on the point that homosexuality used to be classified as a paraphilia... I need to take a breather from trying to explain to them what's going on here, so I appreciate your efforts! Jokestress (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

• Thanks for the kind words! For one thing, I have been battling burnout for a long time. Second, and at least as important, I need to try to publish stuff, to help secure my career in the long-run. I.. may never be back as a heavy-hitting contributor. Or I may. I dunno. But either way, I appreciate your comments. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I hope you come back, as you are a true spirit. I hate it that you do not have access to English libraries. I worry about you now. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Worry? <blink, blink>. Absolutely no need for that... but thanks for the thought. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I don't want to worry. There is a dysphoric tone that perhaps I read into your words. I am glad to hear that I am wrong! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for copyediting the article! It needed a brushup. Punkmorten (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Hi there. I am hoping to draw on your experience and views re GAs: if you have a moment, can you glance at a question I have raised at the above talk page, relating to a review I am commencing of California Proposition 8 (2008)? I will also ask a couple of other experienced editors whom I know to take a look at the same thing. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK source question

AT this entry for DYK I asked if the site Allmusic was a reliable source, since it seems like a blog to me. The user said it was "hardly" a blog. Since I'm not such a referencing person, but you seem to be experienced in that field, what is your opinion? Ceranthor 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a blog. It is a reliable source for much infomation. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Samir

Hi Mattisse, Its been long since we last communicated. Could you please see the Death and Adjustment Hypotheses article and possibly participate in the discussion for its deletion! I need vigorous discussion to make it a good article. But I think there is not enough open discussion. Samir Shoovrow (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Samir, it looks like the article has already been deleted. I think the problem is that the article would have to be on a general subject, such as "Death and adjustment hypotheses" in which the theories of many individuals would be discussed. Wikipedia doesn't support a discussion of one person's theory in an article, unless that theory has received scientific support of others. Generally, articles on specific books are supported only if the book has received significant press coverage. Wikipedia has become stricter in this regard. Sincerely, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mattisse, The article is still there. Please click Death and Adjustment Hypotheses, you will find very established references this time and see if you want to participate in deletion discussion. SamirShoovrow (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article cannot be kept per the wikipedia rules. It is your original hypothesis, and unless you can show that it is generally accept by notable people in the field, it falls under WP:OR. I am sorry. Even if I weighed in, it would do no good. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but as a good friend I must mention to you that this theory has been reviewed twice by the highest peer reviewed journal on death and now even McGraw-Hill company's text material sites about the theory. Ain't it enough to be a reliable topic for public reading? Anyway, I believe you have already seen the references and I respect your opinion as always!! Samir Shoovrow (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Hi Mattisse, re [2] – you were present at the time I had my spat with Voxpopulis. Did you think his complaint, cited in the linked proposal, was justified? I thought I had refuted it on the evidence page. Best, Jayen466 09:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)