User talk:Mattisse

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Mattisse/Archive 12. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

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

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: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. 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)