User talk:Mattisse

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks a lot for your meticulous attention to Loihi. If I could copyedit like that...*jelousy* ResMar 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just smilin' :)

Mattisse, CarpetCrawler 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I will try to think of someone. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archives

You mentioned on my talk page that you had blanked your talk page. Sometimes it is best just to clear away old discussions and make a fresh start. At some point, though, you should restore the links to your talk page archives and archive the discussions that got blanked. I personally archive everything - if you think others should be aware of previous discussions, I would archive them. I'd also like to thank you here for submitting a statement at the request for arbitration. I've now voted to accept and made a lengthy comment that I hope you and the other parties will read. At present, you and Karanacs are the only parties listed. One of the things that the arbitration committee need to decide on (after reading the other statements presented) is the scope of the case and whether any other parties need to be added. If you have any views on this, please let us know. I will ask Karanacs the same question. Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, perhaps it would be best, under the circumstances, if you allow someone else the privilege of suggesting to Mattisse how to manage her talk page. No offense, just my opinion. I suggest that Mattisse is feeling vulnerable right now and it is probably just best to stick to ArbCom business and leave it at that, plus make replies to whatever emails that she's indicated that she may make to you, as indicated on your talk page. Just my armchair sort of thing, you know. All the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Mattisse should be allowed archive her talk as she pleases. No harm; the history is easily accessable if needs be. A long term and valued contributor is going through a difficult time; echo Wehwalt's pleade for space. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I said the talk page archive links should be restored "at some point". No rush. As Ceoil says, those who want to look through the talk page history know where it is. I thought that advice about archive links would be better coming from me than from someone who might have come here later looking for the links. Addressing the other points raised:

• I am very aware that Mattisse is feeling vulnerable right now, and when she initially reacted to the filing of the arbitration request, it was me that called for a delay to give her space while she decided what to do. The following (although rather long) is intended to allay any concerns she may have about the arbitration process.
• I have suggested (on the now blanked talk page or at the RFAR) that if she feels unable to represent herself effectively at arbitration, she should ask someone else to represent her, or for others to help her represent herself.
• However, Mattisse either needs to directly ask for a delay, if needed, or go ahead with the arbitration case when it opens (unless circumstances change and reasons to reject the case arise, the case is likely to be opened soon). As Thatcher said at one point, arbitrators will listen and try to judge fairly if all sides of a situation are presented, but in order for there to be a fair and balanced presentation of the case, all parties need to engage in the case, or be encouraged and aided in presenting their case. My aim here is to keep Mattisse, or those supporting her, engaged in this arbitration process, because I do want to hear both sides of this.
• The worst outcome, from my point of view, is that Mattisse, on the advice of others (she mentioned this on my talk page), stays away and a one-sided presentation is made against her. That gives me no way to judge what has happened here. i.e. The arbitration committee are aware that Mattisse is a long-term and valued contributor, but someone (not necessarily Mattisse) still needs to present her side of things.
• I'm aware that the case itself has the potential to turn into the kind of conflicts and arguments that led to the case itself being brought (though this is true of all arbitration cases). Arbitrators and clerks can't watch the case pages all the time, but I have said that I will check the pages to try and deal with such conflicts if they develop. My advice would be to concentrate on evidence presentation, and to not directly interact with other parties giving evidence.
• As far as e-mails go (Mattisse has indicated on my talk page she would like to e-mail to answer questions I may have), it is best to keep communications between parties and arbitrators in the open, unless private matters need discussing, and even when e-mail is used, it is best to e-mail the whole arbitration committee. For routine advice on arbitration matters, it is sometimes easier to contact an arbitration clerk.

I could say a lot more about this, especially the last point about e-mail, but that is probably best left for another time. For now, I will give Mattisse (and others) space and time to consider what I've written above. Please remember that what I've written here is intended to allay any concerns Mattisse and others have about the arbitration process. I'm away for next 12 hours or so. Mattisse, please feel free to blank or archive this section after you have read what I've written here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed this and this. I should have checked there first. Apologies for that. Those diffs address at least one point I raised above. Hopefully the other points will also help reassure and aid the case to go smoothly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, to echo earlier words, you are always welcome to talk on my page. This is likely to be a stressful sling fest, and it troubles me to see content people here. You have my ear if its needed. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I value your support and open page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have always found Carcharoth to be a good guy and approachable; I think its positive that he is making such an effort to see things from you side. It might not seem so right now, but you are widely respected and valued, I hope you are able to weather this, and it does not not taint the years you have been contributing to wiki. Ive been in similar situations before, where it seemed all were calling for my head, and well its obviously difficult and upsetting.[1]. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth I have not even looked at the arbcom page, and I dont intend to. I dont need other people's openions to inform my own. Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Loihi Seamount

I was confused too, until I saw that the FAC had been archived. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? Does it mean it failed? I am still confused! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it failed, probably because the nomination went stale due to lack of reviews (sigh). Thanks for all your reviewing and copy-editing, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

de-merge Judicial Review

Hello, could I lure you back to a discussion that you contributed to in 2007? Thanks. Agradman (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As soon as a consensus develops (and exams are over) I'll take a stab at it. Regards, Agradman (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Automatic hatlinks from articles to reassessments

These are completely unreliable. In my browser there is no link at all from the Ali's smile article to the reassessment. The people who implemented this fancy CSS stuff did not consult with interested editors, and made presumptions about article assessment which are not valid. The only reason I don't switch them off in my editor preferences is that I need to respond to other editor's concerns from time to time. Geometry guy 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering why it worked for Walmart! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pseudocolus fusiformis

Hi Matisse, I saw you had signed up to review this article (for which, I am once again, very grateful), but haven't yet left any comments. I wanted to let you know that I'll be going on a 3-week wiki-leave in a week, and wanted to make sure I had sufficient time to respond to any suggestions you might have before that time. No pressure or anything, just thought it prudent to inform you of this time restriction on my end. Best wishes, Sasata (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to get around to it tomorrow. The one thing I felt was missing is any mention of Its relationship to humans. Is it eaten? Is it poisonous, etc.? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

You will probably see this soon enough regardless, but it's best if it comes from me: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. I am not angry with you. Now to be entirely fair, if there's anything you have to say regarding that evidence you are welcome to do so. Is there a misplaced diff? Has there been any failure to recognize a good faith motivation? Is something mistaken in that evidence? If there is, please supply a specific correction and I will amend the statement. Is there missed context or anything else I should know? I will wait 24 hours for a response, or until you resume editing, before proceeding to the workshop. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You have resumed editing.[2] Is there something you want to add here? Durova^Charge! 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

?[3][4] If you wish to comment upon the evidence, please do so now. This is not the sort of query that's possible to route through John Carter, since principally it asks what you were thinking. Please respond, otherwise I may surmise that you have no meaningful response. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• If the query is why I reverted that edit, it is because the editor changed the spelling of the article from "Pseudologia fantastica" to "Pseudologia fantasia". I left a message on his page because I saw that there were already three from May, so I though that was a situation where a "unconstructive edit" message was warrented. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I want straight responses. There will never be a better time for you to give them to me than now. Do you have any comment or correction to make upon my evidence? Durova^Charge! 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I cannot make much sense of your evidence. There is a lot of background knowledge that you assume I have in your evidence that I don't know about. John Carter will figure it out and respond as best he can on my behalf. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing he has said so far is in another discussion (which he did not notify me existed, nor that he would reply to this query there) to quote you as saying "Durova was asking me in her post on my talk page, I believe unless I read it wrong, to comment on her Arbitration statements. As far as I know, there are no complaints related to GA posted there. And posts regarding GA on my talk page, I have answered there. I do not want to address Durova's post. I do not see the point of it, as you are already formally representing me." Now frankly I don't know what you mean by that. But I'll tell you this feels like getting the run-around.

Years ago when I was in college, the main library occasionally purchased new books where the deliveries got misaddressed to my residence. A little pile of books began collecting. They belonged to the library, but we weren't obligated to correct the mistakes that had brought them to our doorstep. One day out of the goodness of my heart I lifted 30 pounds of books and carried them across the street to the main library, where a clerk tried to dismiss me to a different office on the other end of campus as if I were her messenger. Know what I did? I declared I wasn't her servant and dropped those books with a resounding thud.

I'm offering to do you a favor here. Don't waste the offer. Durova^Charge! 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I cannot follow what you are saying to me nor determine what you want from me. I cannot understand what talking about here. If you have problems with John not notifying you about something, please take it up with him. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you are a featured article writer. You have contributed 75 DYK articles. You are one of this website's best copyeditors. You presented competent and detailed evidence at the Zeraeph arbitration case.[5] And now you expect me to suppose all capacity for nuanced comprehension has inexplicably departed when it would do you the most good. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And actually, Mattisse, I would have preferred if you hadn't restored the edit conflicted version. But I won't edit war at your user talk. This will be my final attempt to interact productively on this matter; an offer to tone down my evidence shouldn't become a new bone of contention. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing content about subjects I know is completely different than trying to understand your logic or the issues you present in your evidence. I do not feel you and I understand each other at all. We are on completely different wavelengths. I don't understand where you are coming from or what your goals are regarding me. I believe to pursue this further is futile. I think it is best if we have no further contact. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I do not necessarily think that I am obliged to express my feelings to you. If you want to hear from me, you can post on the talk page of one of the ArbCom pages or elsewhere and ask. I want John Carter to relay my comments during the course of this arbitration to reduce the amount of pressure on me. I can't see how anyone would have any real cause to object to this plan. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lordship Lane, Haringey

I've asked User:DGG here if he has any thoughts about what, if anything, can be done to rescue this article, which currently seems to have pretty much every problem issue going. (I've involved him as he was the one who made the loudest and most reasoned defense of "minor road" articles last time the issue came up, so I thought he'd be best placed to make suggestions of how it could be kept.) As it was yourself who originally tagged it for cleanup back in 2007, you may want to comment. – iridescent 15:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about road articles at all. I have never worked on a road article and I have no suggestions regarding this one. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

What is it that you want, exactly? What is your ideal result? Lets say that people work together - how would you fix it? If people group together - what does that matter? What exactly would make you feel comfortable, secure, and the rest? Do you really just want to be banned? If so, why would you have spent so much time editing in so many different content areas? There are many people who are willing to work with you, and if you feel people are part of a group, why not form your own group or make connections so that the group mentality doesn't affect you anymore? John Carter is willing to work on the ArbCom for you, so that is one person. Ceoil above welcomed you to his talk page whenever, so that is another person. There are others too that are willing to work with you, discuss things with you, and help you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I love copy editing and article writing. I don't understand the wiki politics. They are over my head. The Scientology thing caught me by surprise. I am not a political person. The editors in the Arbitration posting against me are mostly not editors I work with anyway. As you point out, there are plenty of editors willing to work with me and with whom I have no problems. I especially appreciate the support of Ceoil and you. If I could be left alone to work on articles and voice my opinion in the areas in which I work, I would be happy. I should be able to open a GAR without having it overturned by an admin, for example. I have a good working relationship with many editors, far more than this group that opposes me. But I am not interested in forming a group to oppose the group that is against me. I don't believe that forming editing "cliques" is good for wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a group for you to oppose others with, but a group of regulars that you talk and work with regularly. They could also look in on situations in-case things were becoming problematic so you wouldn't have to worry about being bullied. Now, if you want to be left alone, how would you propose such things happening in FAC and FAR? They are contentious because of the nature of pride in one's work, so there is a possibility of disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point regarding the fate of a lone editor venturing into FAC and FAR without the protection of a group. I have good working relationships with the many editors that I talk to, ask opinions of etc., but they are not "FAC regulars" so that doesn't provide protection if I want to comment on a FAC by another editor. Now I only comment if I know the editor already. I don't see a way of forming a group for the purposes of commenting at FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, I don't mean protection, but more of... verification? If someone was acting out of line, they were people that you would trust to be able to view it independently and, if it was necessary, help deal with it so you don't become entrenched. It would also require you to be willing to trust that these people are looking out for you. They would be somewhere between a mentor and a friend. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)