User talk:Cyborg Ninja

Metaphysis

In response to your recent submission to the Bone article regarding the epiphyseal plate. The metaphysis is not synonymous with the epiphyseal, or growth, plate. The metaphysis is a specific area of a long bone that lies between the diaphysis and epiphysis. When present in a long bone, the epiphyseal plate is a thin disc of hyaline cartilage that lies between the epiphysis and the metaphysis. Robert M. Hunt 18:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's better than making a new entry for metaphysis alone. You'll need to either do that, or further define what's already there. Metaphysis is a common medical term and should be mentioned. - Cyborg Ninja 22:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see the article for metaphysis. I did not edit that article and it says basically what I stated. Do with that what you wish, but I do believe it is worthwhile to note in the articles that the epiphyseal plate is located within the metaphysis. - Cyborg Ninja 06:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Crohn's

Read about your health condition.Please try to see Dr.Robert Baldassano;Director of the center for Inflammatory Bowel disease at Children's hospital of Philadelphia.>He himself came down with Crohn's disease.According to US News & World report article--Sept.3,2007,John ricci's Colon was going to be removed-but parents went for 2nd opinion--Baldassano tried combination of different drugs and dosage and John Ricci was on the mend without Colon removal surgery.GOOD LUCK - SatinderMullick

I Googled Baldassano and it seems it's about how he uses Infliximab in children. I'm not sure if I could support that. Infliximab has serious side effects even in adults, but it's worth studying. Thank you for the info. - Cyborg Ninja 21:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,I read your condition--You are a BRAVE person.Please consult Dr.Robert Baldassano of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.Dr.Baldassano suffers from similar problem and is Director of IBD. By the way,Dr.Tarun Mullick helped a Race track runner(15 years old youngman) regain full strength from Crohn's and even became MAIN SPONSOR of FOR FOXRIVER 5K to find better cures for Crohn's disease. I wish you many years of good health. - unsigned comment from SatinderMullick

I am not a medical doctor--but www.gastroendonews.com had a few articles written by top experts on IBD and reviewed by Dr.Tarun Mullick 3/4 months ago where all the new drugs were discussed.You may wish to read those articles--Access is Free. Satinder Mullick,Ph.d. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinderMullick (talk • contribs) 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

300+ edits a day user

One quick question before I begin my bit, what user is this? Tagging articles is an okay thing to do, but tagging three hundred a day, is not, that is about one edit every 4.8 minutes. That is considered okay, but just seems weird. Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 21:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, how did you find me, personally? Your Grace Lord Sir Dreamy of Buckland ^tm 21:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I discussion

Hello, just so you know, User:Mattisse had begun a discussion about what looks like canvassing from you at WP:ANI. If you could help point out to the other admins the history behind this, that would be a great help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate being notified, but there is no canvassing going on (don't appreciate the insinuation). - Cyborg Ninja 06:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Didn't intent to imply you were canvassing. I meant that Mattisse looked to be implying that you were canvassing (and frankly I shouldn't be trying to state other people's implications anyways). Let's just forget it and say that a discussion about your posts to other users started on ANI, nothing else. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. It's no big deal. I wouldn't have known about it otherwise. - Cyborg Ninja 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

re User:Mattisse

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I have been provided with diffs that indicate that you have been commenting on other users talkpages regarding the activities of the above user, often without any prior contact. This constitutes harrasment and is not permitted per No Personal Attacks. I would request that you cease this behaviour immediately. If you believe there is a problem with Matisse there are several methods of dispute resolution, or forums in which to make your concerns known. This is the appropriate, and only, method permitted by Wikipedia - please use them. LessHeard vanU 12:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your message on my talkpage, I too feel it is unfortunate that you think I am jumping to conclusions. I warned you regarding your behaviour specifically because of the content of the following edits;

• User:Mattisse [1]

• User talk:Kranar drogin[2]

• User talk:IvoShandor[3]

• Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) [4][5]

• User talk:JLaTondre[6]

• User talk:W.marsh[7]

• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 20/Articles [8]

• User talk:Dreamafter [9]

These were provided to me by the complainant. They illustrate inappropriate behaviour, and I acted accordingly. I further note your comment, "Even if other administrators declare that I shouldn't contact other users about this user, I will still investigate it further as I have the past few days..." which indicates your lack of good faith in using the correct avenues of pursuing your concerns. I have no opinion on whether your concerns are valid, and would support your efforts in bringing them to the attention of others, but I do not feel you are doing this in the correct manner. Anyone who disregards WP policy and guidelines is likely to attract the attention of an admin. You have, and you have. LessHeard vanU 20:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Following your comments at my talkpage regarding the lack of evidence of harassment and personal attacks, I would draw your attention to the following sequence of edits on various talkpages;

• User talk:Kranar drogin Your edit dd 22 October 2007 followed Mattisse's dd 16 October 2007

• User talk:IvoShandor Your edit dd 22 October 2007 followed Mattisse's dd 13 October 2007

• Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) Your suggestion of Arbitration dd 22 October 2007 and also this dd 22 October 2007 followed this dd 4 October 2007 through to this dd 17 October 2007 by Mattisse

• User talk:JLaTondre Your edit dd 22 October followed Matisses' first edit dd 20 October 2007, and subsequent edits

• User talk:W.marsh your edit dd 22 October 2007 followed Mattisses edit - mentioning you - dd 21 October 2007

The above pattern suggests to me wikistalking, 'following another editor to another article' (or in this case talkpage) 'to continue disruption'. On one day, and in a few hours, you commented on talkpages where Mattisse had had some misunderstanding or difference previously, which falls under Harassment. Furthermore, your comments in part were in respect of Mattisse's alleged poor record in contributing, which is specifically commented as being in violation of No Personal Attacks, where it states "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

As I said, I have no opinion in this matter on the legitimacy of your concerns regarding Mattisse; you may or may not be justified in your beliefs. I am, however, of the opinion that you are abusing the processes of Wikipedia in the manner in which you have conducted yourself. This is the only aspect I am concerning myself with. I strongly urge and request you to reconsider your methods, and adopt the processes and venues provided by Wikipedia to address your concerns - or to otherwise cease posting comments regarding User:Mattisse on other user or article talkspace. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't want to go into detail about this now because it has a long, recorded history. You posting a bunch of links that I already know of and have referred to is just ignoring what I said. I have a life and being forced to deal with a long, drawn-out argument in order to explain a long series of actions. So what do I do for now? I guess I'll start by telling you you are wrong in your interpretation on harassment or stalking. There was no "continuing disruption" on my part. If you read my comments, they deal with the subjects at hand. A Talk page does not equate to an article. I don't see how they're even comparable. And once again, I only contacted people for commentary on what I should do, if anything. You unfortunately decided to give me a warning without providing any meaningful or helpful commentary on what should be done about the subject. I guess you don't consider that part of your job; or takes too much time, which I couldn't blame you for since I agree, it does. As for the personal attack comment, no such thing occurred. I didn't say Mattisse had a "poor record in contributing" as far as I know. Maybe you meant to say something else because that sounds like article contributions to me, but I don't know what you're referring to. To the other editors, I asked for commentary on what I considered suspicious behavior. When I have to defend myself in a case like this, obviously I have to include examples of why I did so-and-so behavior and what my thoughts are. I have to admit it's difficult to talk on a certain level from where I'm used to speaking. You might want to check out my User page. I'm a logician. Symbolic mainly, but whatever. So I see many mistakes and I know the causes of why people commit them, but getting them to see their fallacies is quite hard. Like above with your references to stalking and personal attacks; I can see why you read something the way you did, but you don't, IMO, understand the meaning or "spirit" behind it. But don't take that as a disparagement; nearly a third of humanity does not operate in a formal operational mode of thinking. - Cyborg Ninja 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A few more comments to make. First, I don't think you, in your position of having casually dealt with Mattisse before, should be involved. Second, I don't plan on posting on anymore talk pages about Mattisse to other people for the most part until I get an OK from an admin or several other editors. I find it kind of funny how you practically copied and pasted the AN/I discussion when I had referred to it before and already posted there. It's as if you didn't notice that I did. It's in my personality to be very kind, forgiving, etc, but I really despise it when someone takes my good intentions (in this case, to make Wikipedia better without the disruptions from Mattisse) and twists them into something they're not, whether it's because they're unwilling to spend time on a case, have ill will toward a user, or what. Oh and another funny thing that crosses my mind - what would you do if there was a user causing severe vandalism and disruptions all across the site and several other users were talking about him? Would you give them warnings, too? This is partly your fallacy when you don't recognize the reasoning behind rules and go by the letter of the law, without really understanding it. Rules exist to make Wikipedia a better place. Not to defend those who ruin it. - Cyborg Ninja 23:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fresh start

Cyborg, as a sort of fresh start, what exactly is the issue with User:Mattisse's edits? If it is in part related to what's in this conversation, you could go to Wikipedia:Citing sources and discuss it there, as a policy question, not an specific user conduct question. For example, I think a question of "what sort of bounds should the 'needs sources' tags be applied" would be a serious legitimate question. That way, you can see if others agree on the policy question. Stay away from questioning specific user conduct. If I'm off, post a note on my talk page (or an e-mail as I'm getting mighty busy with school). Also, you might want to consider enabling your email. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There were several things. The massive tagging isn't even that big of a deal to me, though I think it's disruptive. But should I even talk about this here anymore? Am I allowed to talk about it here or on your page? I don't know. I will consider enabling my email -- didn't notice it before. I guess I'll go ahead and link to some of the problems.

• Mattisse has a history of passive-aggressive tactics and here angers a user with sarcasm [10]
• Mattisse becomes angry at a bot that tagged two of his articles for copyvio [11]
• Mattisse threatens another user who mentions his tagging [12]

Among many other examples. I and another user had a problem several weeks ago with Mattisse for nominating an article for deletion and later saying he just wanted it cleaned up, and nominated it so it would get done sooner. If you look back at Mattisse's talk page (I guess it's archived now), you can see that I tried to extend a helping hand to Mattisse to fix any problems he had with the article. Unfortunately, Mattisse ignored me. So I did more work on the [drapetomania] article (the one that was nom'd for deletion) and ignored Mattisse until I was reading about Chinese architecture (I have a WIDE variety of interests, just check my contribs) and saw that there was a big argument going on there. So I recommended they get an arbitrator or an admin, whatever you call it.

I could go into my personal interpretation of what's going on with Mattisse, but I don't think it's appropriate here on Wikipedia. I just hope something is done to make sure that people who have such a high standing on Wikipedia, or make many edits like Mattisse does, have the social maturity to do so. I do appreciate your willingness to help. I think you noticed yourself that Mattisse saw that you didn't immediately agree with him and so he said he didn't think you were fit to comment or decide on the AN/I. That's just another example of why I think there are problems. - Cyborg Ninja 20:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)