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

Pleae help me!

((copyed from User:LessHeard vanU talk page)

The Cyborg Nina person is after me again. I filled an ANI complaint but I can see it will not do any good.

I know I flipped out here about the bot tagging my new articles as copyvios and over reacted for while I am very sorry. I hope I have not lost credibility over that. I'm calmed down now and I followed User talk:W.marsh's instructions and undid my disruptive copyvio postings as W.marsh requested, and hope to make amends. I have one little problem now which I was hoping someone could snuff out before it gets bigger. User:Cyborg Ninja seems to be following me around and entering comments on my page and the pages of others seeming to try to stir things up about me. I do not know why this person is so interested in doing this to me. Examples:

• 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]

Double nomination

Perhaps you noticed that I accidently nominated the same article you did Muslim Agricultural Revolution one day later. The author and I have been discussing it and thinks we should work on hooks together as he likes mine too and suggests it for at least an alternate hook. Of course the nomination is yours, but the correct day is October 21, going by his article history. This gives him one more day of eligibility too, not that he will need it. So how about it? We could move the article to the correct day and use both hooks like the author wants. We could work on other hooks too. How about it? Regards, --Mattisse 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattisse, for letting me know about the wrong date. I'll move my hook to the right date next to yours, where you can feel free to add more alt. hooks. BTW, I wrote my hook without the article's title because I was considering a pagemove to "Agricultural development during/Agriculture in the Islamic Golden Age". The current title is a bit unclear. It may be misinterpreted as 'Revolution of Muslim Agriculture'. And there's no such thing as 'Muslim Agriculture'. 'Muslim' only refers to the fact that the people involved shared Islam as a common religion. I ain't sure, so I didn't move the page. --PFHLai 06:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about the title. But the title did get me to read it. In the lead sentence, when you say "is known as . . ." it sounds like that is the general term for what happened then. Also, considering the (to me) really surprising information in the article, perhaps "Muslin Agricultural Revolution" can be read in the same light as the Industrial Revolution. --Mattisse 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It got my attention, too. Anyways, it's on MainPage now. Never mind. BTW, I think Neolithic Revolution should be the one Agricultural Revolution to be read in the same light as the Industrial Revolution. -- PFHLai 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

re Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture)

It wouldn't have been me that talked about merges, redirects and stuff - I don't know that much about it! ;~) As far as the article goes, and as it appears to have been reverted to a prior edit, I believe that consensus needs to be found to include the details you wish to add. You may need to find the person who gave you the previous advice, but you do need to AGF that the other editor has proceeded on the understanding that the matter was settled. It may be that this is an article you should withdraw from; there is plenty on WP that needs fixing, returning to the same old arguments might be a less productive use of your efforts. LessHeard vanU 08:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wonder if you will help me again. A while ago another user unilaterally redirected another article that I was working on into his. I asked if a person could do that without discussing it and I believe it was you on the ANI who said it had do be done through a merge.

Now I find that User:Cyborg Ninja entered the discussion on the talk page and misinformed the editor of the article that I had announced on ANI that the matter was closed (at least that is how I read her notes) so that the editor thinks the discussion is over and can go ahead and copy one article into another:

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

Please look at the talk page of the article Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) and see that I was in full discussion with the editor before User:Cyborg Ninja entered the situation and the editor reverted the article to include the two articles -- before I complainted on the talk page and he was told to do a merge.

Hope I am not being confusing here. Regards, --Mattisse 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not being clear what I was trying to draw to your attention. The person I consulted on ANI did clarify to the other editor that the merge procedure was necessary.

One, I am asking you about Cyborg Ninga's interference and (perhaps I am reading it incorrectly) influencing that editor to disregard the merge requirements. (You recently gave Cyborg Ninga a warning about personal attacks on my behalf and this is one of the issues she entered into for no reason -- she had no prior history with the article and stalked me to this article talk page -- and interfered in a way detrimental to my dialog with the editor.)

• [14]
• [15]

So the editor thanks her and completes the merge against my expressed input and against the merge requirements.[16]

Two, after your warning, she is continuing her personal attacks against me on her talk page. Is she allowed to personally attack me on her talk page?

• This is an O.K. statement refuting your block warning and stating you are wrong, which she is entitled to her own opinion about: [17]
• Here, after the first editor who responded to my ANI request apologizes to her, she is criticizing your "copy and pasting" the links I put on ANI that you put on her page - which is between you and her. [18]
• However here, after the other editor suggests that she have a "fresh start" by using legitimate Wikipedia ways of dealing with her problems with me and suggest some ways, she posts these accusations about me[19] She is attacking me personally again, this time on her talk page: (this is copied from her talk page)[20]:

Specifically she repeats her personal attacks anew on her talk page:

• Mattisse has a history of passive-aggressive tactics and here angers a user with sarcasm [21]
• Mattisse becomes angry at a bot that tagged two of his articles for copyvio [22]
• Mattisse threatens another user who mentions his tagging [23]

Is this O.K. for her to continue to post these attacks against me, even on her talk page? Thanks! Mattisse 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, is it ok to continue to post these attacks? Technically, no. However, these are not new accusations and they are being made to a third party who is already familiar with the matter, thus they are not being poisoned or influenced by them. It will be very hard to justify sanctioning Cyborg Ninja for repeating comments when responding to anothers question about them - in short, I would not be prepared to. As far as Cyborg Ninja's responses to me, I do not bother myself with peoples reactions to my admin actions - I knew that being an admin would entail lots of people being prepared to point out how I am not acting appropriately (in minute detail) in respect of themselves. My course of action is to ignore the subsequent fall out.

Regarding the Caisson article, it is up to you to decide if you wish to re-activate the discussion - politely explaining that you had not agreed to the changes and that you would prefer to discuss it further - or take it to a different forum immediately to get a consensus or to drop the matter. Since the change has been made any revert needs to gain consensus, even if you believe the change was made under a mistaken position. AGF requires that you work under the assumption that the other editor acted believing they were taking the approved course of action.

I think you need to step back. Wikipedia is going to be around for a long time, and there is always going to be lots of stuff that needs attention and lots of people with different ideas on how to do things. Just because you did no wrong does not imply that the other person did, you just had different views on the matter. I really do think you need to move on and find something else to work on. LessHeard vanU 12:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I am over reacting. It is just that this has been going on a while now by Cyborg Nina (See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 and show no sign of abating. She has poisoned the atmosphere on several pages that I used to enjoy by these accusations and I am getting worn down. As you say, when you are an active editor in writing articles, disputes are bound to arise.

However I am just recovering from over six months of concerted attacks by a sock puppet ring, then several months more of attacks by the blocked sock puppets under new names after the ring was blocked -- the ring was accidentally unearthed in an Arbitration at the beginning of this year, after Mediation Cabals (where the mediator turned out to be a sock puppet), several RFC including one on me, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, endless stalking (up to 37 times a day), endless personal attacks which nothing was done about and more. I am only now getting up my nerve to interact at all on discussion and talk pages.

Perhaps I need to withdraw again. Go back to just editing my own articles that no one cares about unless they become DYK. And now I am realizing that DYK is dangerous for just that reason. It brings attention and therefore badness. I am going to stop DYKs. Thanks for helping and for giving me your honest opinion. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is only that an article I wrote became a DYK that the article was noticed and then copied into Caisson (Asian architecture) to begin with and the #REDIRECT to the Caisson article. So DYK is very risky. I will stop that and stop entering discussion pages. My mistake was to start working with the Medical (psychiatry, psychology) portal. All those people are fine, but in doing work for the portal, one mistake and now I have Cyborg Nina on my back and all the recovery from the last year of pain is gone. I will deal with the Caisson article as what was done was so outrageous and I have complained many times before over it. That will be my last interaction, however that turns out, I will retreat from interaction. Those days of withdrawal are my happiest days on Wikipedia. I can just write, which is my interest, free from all this nastiness. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Caisson, again

Matisse, you keep on saying that I cannot copy material out of other articles - and I keep on telling you that yes, I can - that's what the GFDL license means. It means, among other things, that material from one article can be synthesised from one article into another.

On a second matter, I am genuinely interested to hear why you think the material that you keep on removing does not deal with the caisson. Let us assume for the moment that caisson = zaojing. It seems that these articles are dealing with the zaojing/caisson. Is that what you are disupting? Or are you asserting that caisson =/= zaojing again?

By the way, what we are discussing here is no longer a merger issue. As I explained on the talk page, we now have a content dispute on the Caisson article. Until we have a stable version, a merger discussion will be quite useless.

I may not reply for a few days, as I will be busy in real life. I look forward to hearing from you. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please point me towards a statement of a policy that "you cannot copy material from one article to another" - since I seem to do that all the time - e.g. from Tiananmen to Tiananmen Square to Tiananmen Square protest of 1989 and vice versa. Please point me towards the policy so I can avoid violating it - if it exists. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may be so rude, I believe that you are mistaking the requirement of consensus for a merger of articles with a requirement of some sort of stand-alone consensus (without any appeal to the merit) for any editing to an article.

Currently, we are discussing certain parts of the article which you keep on removing on the basis that they are similar to parts of another article. My view is as follows:

1. That parts of one article are similar to parts of another is not, alone, a rationale for its removal. Check out, for example, the sections in Tiananmen and Tiananmen Square dealing with the 1989 massacre - they started out identically and even now are quite similar.
2. If you are arguing for their removal, then you have to base your argument on the merits of the edit - e.g. WP:RS, WP:V, fidelity to sources, etc.
3. Specifically, I am genuinely interested to hear why you think those sources are not suitable for this article.
4. Finally, until we get a stable version, we cannot proceed to a merger discussion. Until you explain your deletions on the merits as specified above, I cannot agree to these edits, since I assert that they are relevant, notable, and satisfy all referencing criteria. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let us get a third opinion on the matter. I do know that you cannot use sources that you have not consulted. You cannot pretend to have consulted them. Cheers, Mattisse 14:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I am not pretending that I personally checked such of those sources that are not available online (I did check the online ones). I proceeded on the basis of your statements relating to the sources - assuming that you did personally consult the sources.

Again, there is no "authorship" on Wikipedia. Once you wrote the material and posted it in an article, then it can be used across Wikipedia (and in fact in any GFDL-compatible way) unless there is something wrong with the material in terms of, say, infidelity to sources, not being verifiable, not using reliable sources, etc - and there is no reason for me to think that any of the material you wrote suffer from any of those defects.

If you wish to exclude this material, you need to make an argument on the merits - relevance, verifiability, fidelity to source etc, and not just "I wrote it and you didn't. Again, Wikipedia is collaborationist, and the meaning of the GFDL licence is that - among others - any material you contribute can be used in any GFDL-compatible way, including in any other article. You simply cannot assert proprietary ownership of an article. Otherwise, how do you think I would feel about "my" Imperial Seal of China article being copied all over the net? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are pretending if you cite them in an article and you have not consulted them. Besides WP:CITE, WP:NOR (since you have not consulted the sources) and WP:POV are applicable. Cheers, Mattisse 14:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

These statements do satisfy WP:V and WP:RS as far as I can see, because the person who originally wrote them (you) presumably personally consulted the sources cited. There is no reason for me to doubt that. If you dispute that the original contributor personally consulted the sources cited - well I guess you are in the best position to tell us that!

So did you, or did you not, personally consult those sources when you first wrote those statements attributed to those sources? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have explained to you before, when I say "my sources" I mean sources I own and can consult. The sources that I own and can therefore verify by looking are quoted incorrectly in your article. These books are very difficult for me to read and understand. You have used the copied sources incorrectly when you copied from one article to another. In one instance I could not find the source cited in the book so I must have been mistaken. In another instance, the lady whoever's tomb, neither a caisson nor a zaojing is mentioned. Cheers, --Mattisse 15:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked at the Village Pump (policy) and the answer is that you cannot use the sources copied from another Wikipedia article - providing diff of answer

• [24] Here is the diff with the answer. Please follow policy and remove the sources. --Mattisse 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Plus link to go to read about it copied from Village Pump (policy):

See more specifically the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it. GRBerry 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

--Mattisse 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for a clarification at the Village Pump. You are ingenious in the way you misrepresent the issue, but what you asked is not the question at hand. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. It does mean that I can remove the references you copied from another Wikipedia article. --Mattisse 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't. I have asked for a clarification at the Village Pump. Wait for it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

O.K. But I specifically asked if an editor can copy references, and the answer was No. You have to shell out for the books yourself. --Mattisse 00:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Psychopathy

Given your status as a professional in the field, I am assuming you have at least a passing awareness of current research on the subject, so your argument was a nonstarter. If you would like to put your expertise to use and contribute, please feel welcome. I do not have much time available to edit and no longer have university library access at my fingertips, so new contributions are welcome.--NeantHumain 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK October 25

Did you know? was updated. On 25 October, 2007, a fact from the article Muslim Agricultural Revolution, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Explanation

I was a relatively inexperienced administrator at the time, and there were definitely better ways to handle the situation. I was naive, and took sides, when I should have been neutral and assumed good faith on your part. I apologize for my actions, and it was disappointing to see BostonMA leave Wikipedia. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Paliath Achan

Hello! I noticed that you added a template for in-text citations in this article. I have gone ahead and added a bunch. I wanted to before, but I guess I was a little lazy :p. Thanks for giving me a kick in the pants! I have also removed the template. I did it because I think I have given a sufficient number of citations. Stuff that doesn't have it will be need to be marked with the {{fact}} tag. Could you go over the article and check it out? If you think it still needs that main template do go ahead and add it. Thanks! --vi5in^[talk] 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the tag so constructively. I still think it needs more citations but it is great that you are working on it and it will encourage others to do the same so it is fine with me if you leave the template off. A good thing to remember, if you are really interested in the article, is that if you find information in it that you feel is incorrect, you can remove it if it is not sourced. Any editor can remove unsourced material. Good work and thanks for the message! Regards, --Mattisse 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, yes it still needs more citations. The article is basically about an ancestor of mine (I am from the Paliam family). I was able to get most of the information from a book I had. I need to find it again so I can add more citations. A lot of other information I basically got from my grandparents, granduncles and grandaunts - so a lot of that is just "orally transmitted"(!). I'm still going to try and see what more I can get! --vi5in^[talk] 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on sourcing revisited

Matisse -

Thanks for asking my opinion. My general impression is that User:PalaceGuard008 is correct, but perhaps that's because the points he raises, regarding Wikipedia processes, seem to me closer to the mark than what you're arguing. I've not closely parsed the actual content of the article with regard to the arguments being made.

May I suggest a completely different approach to the situation? Much of what you're saying, regarding when sources do and do not apply, seems to me to be original research, in that you're being scholarly. Wikipedia is really supposed to be built on something a bit more humble: talking pieces of information from reliable sources and combining them.

Based on that, I strongly suggest that you focus on statements/sentences in the article where you have a source saying the opposite. So, for example, if the article says "X is the same as Y" or "X was done at time Y", you need to cite a source that says "X is not the same as Y", or "X was only done at time Z". And if that can't be done because this is a relatively obscure area, or because you think PalaceGuard008 is doing original research that no one else would have published about, then the solution probably is to try to find an expert who is acceptable to both of you, to offer a definitive opinion. (See Wikipedia:Academic peer review.))

Finally, more generally, I think you are - when writing articles - definitely the kind of editor that Wikipedia needs (and needs more of); in this dispute, I think you're spending a lot of time that would be better used elsewhere. In short, as irritating as it may be to see another article that seems to interpret things very differently than you would, I advise you to restrict your discussion on the article to facts and statements for which you can find a source that is directly contradictory, and let the other things go.

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 10:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got some other commitments, so I'm afraid that I can't help with mediation, but, quite frankly, one other person really should be enough - it strikes me that both you and PG008 are pretty reasonable folks. If you stick to factual issues (is or isn't something true? is there or is there not a reliable source that supports it? is there any contradictory evidence?) you should be fine, keeping in mind that everyone wants to do what's best for Wikipedia. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

On factual errors

Matisse -

Regarding your question, here's what I'd do if I were you: post something like the following, in a separate section on the article talk page, with an neutral section heading like "Question about source":

The article says [exact quote here regarding the tomb having three caissons], and cites [name of book]. I can't find that information in the book; would you provide a page number, or cite another source, or remove the information? Thanks.

Even if you're 100% sure you're right, the above approach leaves open the possibility of error (perhaps he really can provide a page number, or is using a different edition and needs to change the citation information), or maybe he can provide another source. The overriding goal is to demonstrate that you assume good faith.

If for some reason you don't get any response in a couple of days, then post a followup saying that you're going to remove the source and add a "fact" template if there isn't any response in another couple of days. And then do that if there still isn't a response. And then, if in a couple of weeks there is no source provided, assuming that a source you have does have a good description of the tomb that doesn't mention caissons (it sounds like this is the case), post a note to that effect on the talk page, and say you're going to remove the information in light of what you've been able to find, in a day or two. Then do so if there still is no response.

This is a slow-motion approach, and it does leave information in the article that you disagree with, for a while. But it gives other editors every possible chance to fix things, doesn't really take that much time of yours, and any reasonable editor would say that you've bent over backwards (so to speak) to be fair. Challenged information without a valid source is simply original research. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I probably will have to ask more advice from you as I posted the details on the article talk page, but so far the editor has not responded to the specifics. --Mattisse 13:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Pls reply urgently

Mattisse, I am on the verge of publishing my book. It contains the death and adjustment hypotheses of mine. if it gets published, will you do me a favour, just make an article in wiki on the hypotheses. for the sake of a better world it is very important to circulate this new theory.

But any chance, if I need, can you just check the sentence structures of my book for any gross mistake. Shoovrow 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to write an article on Wikipedia that includes your book.

Yes, I can check the sentence structures of your book for any gross mistakes. (I have to admit though, the reason that I did not work on Mattisse/2 is that I did not understand it.) But regarding your book, I can try to check sentence structure without changing your meaning. Where is your book? Sincerely, --Mattisse 14:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the User: Mohammad Samir Hossain at wikipedia after 15 minutes

Pls check the user: mohammad Samir Hossain page at wiki. Shoovrow 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

pls check your e-mail. you will find the book pasted in the e-mail. For wiki article the hypotheses is more important than the whole book. Shoovrow 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

?

Did you receive the e-mail? Shoovrow 17:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

sourcing and the Caisson article

Hi... you posted the following on my talk page (my reply follows):

I have asked this question at the Village Pump (policy) also, but I wanted to hear from you directly.

I asked a question about copying text and sources from other Wikipedia articles and User:PalaceGuard008 asked a question below mine on the same issue on the Village Pump (policy). We disagree on what you said. He copied text and sources from one Wikipedia article and put them in another article in a different context. He says that you said it is O.K. to copy text and sources from one Wikipedia article and put them in a different context.

I wrote an article in which I used sources referencing ancient Chinese history. User:PalaceGuard008 copied much of the text and all the book sources and put them in his article Caisson (Asian architecture) which is mostly about a period in Chinese architecture that is much later. Then he #REDIRECT the article I was working on to his, Caisson (Asian architecture). Further, he has incorrectly applied the book references in the context of his article. I have endlessly discussed this with him on the article talk page, his talk page and my talk page.

In the answers you gave regarding copying sources and text from other Wikipedia articles, were you saying that his copying text and references from one Wikipedia article and putting them in a different context, different time period etc. in Caisson (Asian architecture) is correct? I have the books and he is misusing the references.

If you agree with me that he is acting incorrectly what should I do? If I try to remove any he just reverts. I even supplied an online source that referenced a statement he was using one of the books I have for, and he reverted that also.

If you say he is right, then I will drop the issue. Thanks! --Mattisse 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I will need to know more of the details about what the sources do and don't say and how they are being used in the article to know how you should proceed. It could be that he is taking what the source says out of context, but it could be that he is taking it in context but simply using it in a different way, to support a different point. Since it was my comment on context that you both have responded to, I have offered to get involved on the talk page... perhaps we can work out a solution that both of you are happy with. Oh... the one piece of advice I can give right now is to go slow, and slightly detatch from the issue. Content disputes can be frustrating, and it helps to take a step back from time to time. Anyway... PalaceGuard has stated his view of the debate on the talk page... would you please add your view (be as detailed as you can, as it will help me grasp what the argument is really about.) Thanks Blueboar 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided the details on your talk page and on the article talk page. Thanks! Mattisse 13:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Book

Pls just go through the text. layout is my job. Do it as soon as possible, but complete it. Shoovrow 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks my friend. Can you tell me why you don't understand sometimes? Is it very bad english on my part or else? I think we'll have 5 to 7 days for this review. Shoovrow 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Good as it will take some time! Mattisse 13:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

'my' article lol

Omd! I so rarely created a new article, but I thought this deserved one, not that I'd heard of it before I saw a red link lol. I hope it lives- so depressing if they get deleted. Anyway, feel free to take a look at my Angelus Novus and tinker with it if you dare.:) Merkinsmum 02:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try though be warned, I don't know anything about this connection with Klee's work. (I don't think the article is in danger of deletion!) Mattisse 13:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

settled insanity

On 27 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article settled insanity, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

editing 'your' article

I was scanning your settled insanity page, and in the sentence with the famous red link in it, there seems to be a typo. I dare not trample on your glorious child, though, particularly since I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Just a note for you to take a look at it. And congratulations on the feature. Walking Softly 01:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. So I went ahead and did it. Used "decision" 'cuz "ruling" would have put three "rulings" into the sentence. Walking Softly 03:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad that you did that. Thanks! I'm not a legal person so I am not always sure what it is supposed to say either! --Mattisse 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion: using paintings by Paul Klee in articles about themselves

Someone had already made the Angelus Novus image and said in its summary that it's fair use. If I were to make more articles about the pics, could it be considered fair use, Non-free_content#Acceptable_images criteria 8- "Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary."?Merkinsmum 23:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this. User:Jkelly is, I believe. However, when I have written articles on songs and then upload a fair use image of the actual record with {{album}} tag, it has worked. Also, on Hellhound on My Trail I used the image of Robert Johnson and they tried to tell me that I could not. But they allowed that same image for the article Blues. I argued and said how can you allow it in the Blues and not allow it for the song that made him important to the blues, and they backed off.

The issue is the image has to have relevance to the article. It seems to me if you are writing an article about a specific work of art, you could use an image of that work of art with no problem. As far as whether that particular painting has Iconic status, I do not know, as I have seem many of his works but not seen that one. I assume it is an early one.

Actually, I just looked at the image. If is is used in the Paul Klee article, then I can not think of one reason in the world you could not use it for an article on the specific painting! --Mattisse 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes that one is sorted:) I was more thinking of other painting's pics being used for their own articles. Your Robert Johnson hastle sounds daft! I may check with JKelly that it's ok, it seems such a faff to upload them for someone like me, like listing AfDs, takes ages to get right. Almost might as well be my dishwasher's plumbing :)Merkinsmum 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems hard to upload pics, but once you get the hang of it, it's not that big a deal. There is an upload link on the left menu. It is just a matter of getting it off you desktop, naming it correctly, uploading it and adding the template or justification -- and you have some time to modify that if they send you one of those delete your image messages. For me, it was better to put the link for the pix in the article first, and then upload it. Then it is no an "orphan". You can say you are uploading it for such-and-such article. Also, you can go to the Technical Pump and ask. I had to do that recently because they changed to format slightly and it through me off. Jkelly is a really nice guy. --Mattisse 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey back

I sort of chilled over the summer. Well, not really. Worked on publishing a book, proofreading, helped with its design, etc. So I'm getting back into the swing of things at WP. See you around! Pig^man 00:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologise for any offence I have caused you on Caisson (Asian architecture). As you may understand, I have grown frustrated with this debate - but any condescension that I have displayed in this debate is, I assure you, unintentional. It's easy for me to slip into legal submission mode - an occupational hazard, I'm afraid. However, I would like to resolve the issue as soon as possible, so if you could either supply the sources as requested or concede on certain points where you cannot, that would make everyone's life much easier. Regards, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is too late. Blueboar has lost all credibility with me because he has allowed this abuse and incivility to continue since the beginning and has not enforced rules of common decency. I have never seen constructive solutions result from discussion where rampant incivility was not commented on and stopped. The rudeness, sarcasm and incivility directed toward me have taken a toll. I am exhausted from your comments and the way you have treated me. Civility is the basis for constructive communication. For whatever reason, Blueboar has choosen to allowed it to continue, not even commenting upon it on those times I complained to him about it. I cannot continue being abused in this process any longer. Therefore I cannot continue in the interactions on the Caisson (Asian architecture) process. --Mattisse 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, I am sorry that you have lost confidence in me... I did warn you that I would not always agree with you. Please remember that I am not an administrator, nor am I the civility police. I am just a normal guy who volunteered to try to help resolve a content dispute. It was not my role to enfore "rules of common decency". In fact, it wasn't my job to enforce anything. I simply hoped to focus and guide discussion in an attempt to find wording and citations that you both could live with. Perhaps you had a different expectation.

That said, I do have to note that since I became involved in the discussion, I did not see PalaceGuard as engaging in "rampant incivility"... In fact, I saw him as being remarkably patient. He was willing to repeat arguments he had made several times before, just so I could understand what he was saying. He did so clearly and for the most part calmly. When he did cross the line in one post, and became overly sarcastic, I called him on it... and he duely apologized. I saw that as being a legitimate expression of growing frustration. Inappropriate, but understandable. When he has directly responded to your comments, and you (not for the first time) seemingly ignored what he just wrote, it is understandable that he got frustrated. I did not see personal attacks either... Yes, he criticized your comments and behaviour, but that is not the same as a personal attack. As a neutral outsider, it looks to me like you are being overly sensitive to his criticism. I do not mean this as a personal attack, but simply as an observation.

You have every right to withdraw from discussion... but please note that doing so does mean that you will lose some credibility when it comes to correcting the flaws you see in the article. Good luck with editing other articles. And if you want to return to the discussion and think I can help, I am happy to try again. Blueboar 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information

Mattisse -

Sorry, don't understand about All your comments have been removed from Caisson (Asian architecture). If you're talking about Talk: Caisson (Asian architecture), all my comments still seem to be there, and looking at the page history, I see no edits (since I last posted) that resulted in a decrease in page size. Can you point me to a diff where something was removed?

As for not participating anymore, I think I offered to help if PalaceGuard didn't respond, and (my memory is hazy here) possibly if the discussion gets "stuck". But I really have limited time, and I'm much more interested in politics than in architecture, so I'm trying to stay out unless I'm really needed, and then only to offer advice on process, not to take sides regarding content. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On October 30, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tennard v. Dretke, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the helpme tag from this page because you didn't leave any questions. If you do have a question about using Wikipedia, feel free to re-add {{helpme}} to the page, but be sure to add a question underneath it! - Rjd0060 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} -

how do I get help with being personally attacked when pleas for help have been unsuccessful?

I'm sorry this is happening to you, but you can try going through our dispute resolution process, which might help you to solve the problem. If you've already tried some of that, you may want to go to requests for mediation and work things out there. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its ok for now

Dear Mattisse, I have utilized your corrections. No further is needed right now. Thanks. I will let you know when it will be time to write on my hypotheses at wiki after my bok is published. If you can help me then pls. Shoovrow 17:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar - You allowed Palaceguard to focus on me instead of the content. I was personally attacked and ridiculed daily & you allowed it - I cannot continue under those contitions

You are trying to make it into whether I agree with you or not. That is not the issue. Issue one is not an issue I cared about very much and it was evident a while ago you would accept PalaceGuard008's version -- which is O.K.

I do not care if all the issues go against me if the process is proceeded through in an orderly way. Now I get sick to my stomach in dread to even look at the Caisson (Asia architecture) talk page. I can no longer continue to read the attacks and sarcasm.

You have allowed an atmosphere of ugliness for me. Nothing is worth going through that, no article, nothing. You condone the antics of PalaceGuard008 such as [25] without comment. And that was a minor example of his abuse of me.

You encouraged his continued focus on personally attacking me throughout. I cannot continue when every day I am met with a pile of personal attacks, snide and sarcastic remarks etc. condoned by you.

Further, You allowed him to make sarcastic remarks about me on your talk page, allegations of bad faith, and allude to my ripping off article by merely slightly changing the title on legal articles, you did nothing to point out to him that making personal attacks against me instead of focusing on content was unacceptable.

In fact, this has all been so unpleasant that I can only feel Wikipedia is an awful place. I expected more of you. I thought you would maintain a civil atmosphere. You did not.

The process is not proceeding fairly in an orderly why when you allow such ugliness. Do not make it sound that just because you decided on Issue One in his favor, that is my reason. If you do, you are fooling yourself.

--Mattisse 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate issue (law)

On 30 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ultimate issue (law), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court cases

Hey Matisse, thank you for your great work adding articles on Supreme Court cases. I've noticed them as I add the infobox to a couple. Please do consider joining the WikiProject. We'd be glad to have you.--chaser - t 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I will consider joining. --Mattisse 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages

Mattisse, could you please remain calm and civil when discussing at talk pages? I've noted at the ANI that AGF is also important. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it very much Cyborg Ninja has reported been harassing me and even created an unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 over one incident. That user has also been warned not to stalk me or canvas the community soliciting negative feedback about me and has received a personal attack note for content posted on my page. Thank you again. Regards, Mattisse 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

About death and adjustment hypotheses article

Dear Mattisse, After my research book on DA hypotheses is published, whuch one would you prefer -

1. Give you the total text and you make the article

2. I make an article and you submit it.

But remember, if I write the article, it will be hard for you to maintain the article and answer the criticisms. Let me know by e-mail to <hmanjur@bttb.net.bd>

Shoovrow 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Internet problems

Will be off internet for several hours, starting now. Have been having severe problems for last few weeks. Man here to fix them! This will surely lessen the intense strain I have been under. Hooray for the man who is fixing my problems! --Mattisse 14:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses is one of my biggest contribution in the science of death. My book has been written encircling the hypotheses. They (the hypotheses) are not the wiki article - death and adjustment. Rather it is a very advanced work on the definition of death, existence after death and psychopathology behind death related attitude problem. I want people to know about them, cos that just might change their life, and help to change the style of this civilization to some healthier one. So I thnk if there is a decent article on these hypotheses it will not be unjust for anyone including wiki, rather it will be just for all of us.

Am I clear now? Shoovrow 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me know

Mattisse, if you need to ask anything ask me. Or if it is clear to you let me know pls. Shoovrow 17:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not thinking clearly right now as the internet man is fixing my connection and I am on and off the computer in spurts. But I will ask you any questions I have. I just can't think right now! But you always answer questions so I do feel free to ask. Mattisse 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rice v. Collins on DYK

On 31 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rice v. Collins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer to mysterious question that I do not know who asked

The original article I wrote for DYK was zaojing. I don't know how to demonstrate what happened by diffs and such.

I wrote the article and did get a DYK for it on September 8. When I when back to continue working on it, there was a #REDIRECT to Caisson (Asian architecture) and the contents of the article, zaojing, had been copy/pasted into that article in among the content that was already there

I did complain on ANI and PalaceGuard008 was told that what he did was unacceptable without CONSENSUS. (This may not be the best diffs but you get the general idea.)

• [26] Redirect without consensus is unacceptable October 9 - disruptive behavior
• [27] PalaceGuard008 told to merge. October 9 - someone put a message on his talk page.

However, the end result was that PalaceGuard008 did what he wanted anyway, using the sources and text from the original zaojing article and stuck them, seemingly without understanding the content and what the references were referring to into his article. PalaceGuard008 told to merge. Since I wanted to continue the article on pre 7th century Chinese architecture, (and to protect my DYK, as petty as that is) I redirected the article to another name Ancient Chinese wooden architecture and moved much of the original contents of zaojing to that article and rewrote it some. (I also have a copy of the original zaojing article on a user page.) You can see the DYK under the new article name, and also the comments from another editor of Chinese articles that I asked to give an opinion.

I complained that PalaceGuard008 and incorrectly placed references from zaojing. He said he was in the right. I asked my question at Wikipedia Pump (policy). You know the rest of the story.

I hope I have explained this correctly. (My internet connection is being worked on as I write this, so I am not able to take the time to give more of an explanation. Feel free to ask me more question. I agree that I went over the edge yesterday because I found the whole mediation preceding a farce. I am sorry for losing my cool. But essentially I ended up doing PalaceGuard008's work for him again by providing the Issues while he abused me. Sorry for being "too sensitive" as Blueboar said I was. Maybe I am.

I have to get off the computer now for a small while so my Internet connection can be checked -- it is fixed now I believe. I'll repair this notes shortly. I don't have time to check it now.

Regards, Mattisse 16:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

On consensus at Wikipedia

Mattisse -

Ancient Chinese wooden architecture is a very nice article; it indicates the reason why I think you're a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. You also seem to be very stubborn about certain things, which is fine until you find that you're in a minority of one regarding those and you still insist you're right. Wikipedia, for better or worse, operates on consensus. Either you trust the system - that most editors are reasonable, and that if you make your case clearly, the result will be close to right if the majority gets its way, mostly - or you don't. If you don't, then eventually you're going to get booted from Wikipedia for being a disruptive editor.

Let me get specific: You're redirected Zaojing to your new article, above, even though every other editor involved, including PericlesofAthens and me, believes that caisson and zaojing refer to the same thing. It may well be that the article Caisson (Asian architecture) should be retitled Zaojing, but it's also clear that such an article, whatever its title, should cover the concept all the way up to the present time. Your redirect carries with it the implicit argument that the term "zaojing" is historical only, an argument explicitly rejected by PericlesofAthens, who you mention positively. I fail to understand your underlying thinking here.

So, some unsolicited advice: Wikipedia editors hate going over (and over) issues of who did what, who said what, who did or didn't listen to others, etc. You're not winning any points with anyone by sayig that you've been wronged. Without arguing about that, I note that those were only words - no one burned your house down or physically assaulted you or stole money from you or did anything that, in the real world, is something that it's okay to get upset about. We're supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia; Wikipedia isn't a human rights organization, dedicated to the fair treatment of all editors. What people like me want, at this point, is for the discussion to continue over content issues - what do sources say, how can things in articles be worded so they match accepted sources, what's the best wording that informs readers about the subject? Those are important things, because thousands of people will read the words in the next decade or two. I really hope you can focus from here out on article content, and not on how you feel you've been wronged. If that sounds unsympathetic, sorry, but I have work to do. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I do not care if the #REDIRECT is removed. I did it to get the article content into the article I wished to work on. (and the DYK). And I retrieved my edits lost by the copy/paste. The sources I was consulting were all specifically pre 7th century A.D. Now that the second article exists in with the material in the correct context I am happy. I was angered that for the second time I was tricked into doing PalaceGuard008's work for him, but hey, I can write and correctly source and he cannot.

I do wonder about this: The original #REDIRECT was placed without discussion. I asked on ANI and the answer was MERGE was required. PalaceGuard008 would not do that. I ask PericlesofAthens for his opinion, and it was originally that we should draw straws. Later he changed his mind. Why is it alright for one editor to #REDIRECT without consensus and not for another? But I don't even care about this. I know all is politics and good old boy stuff. I know better than to ever trust anyone now. Nothing really matters here. I write for the pleasure of writing. Every once in a while I stick up for myself and everyone gets blown away.

I certainly will never fall for a mediation again, that's for sure. Mediation is for suckers and masochists. And I am learning not to ask for advice as that cannot be trusted either.

I'm just going to continue my streak of DYK's and let Cyborg Ninja have her fun stirring things up. Feel free to join them. You can probably still weight in on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 or even Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse that turned out to be totally produced by sock puppets (I found out later in Arbitration over the same ultimate issue!) Excuse me for being a little cynical. The first mediator in the "problem" I caused, resulting in the RFC over me and the subsequent Arbitration, was a sock puppet too. Feel free to consult the Starwood Arbitration for the full humerous impact. This place is a comedy and I really cannot take it seriously. Yes, I blow my cool from time to time, but, strangely enough, I am a human being. So, that will happen now and then as there is no other venue here!

What I am learning from all this is to just be selfish. Works much better on Wikipedia than actually trying to do good and improve the articles. Regards, Mattisse 18:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)