User talk:Mattisse

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

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

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Personal attacks will be removed from this talk page. I ask that persons asked not to post here respect my wishes.

Talkback at User_talk:Tohd8BohaithuGh1

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Tohd8BohaithuGh1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Art Deco

This article is listed for GAN, and I would appreciate it if you could do a review of it. If you have time, do you think you'd be able to? Thanks in advance, Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume the reviewer who signed up on the GAN page is not doing the review? I can do it, if that is the case. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't look like they got round to it. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be unable to edit fro a few weeks due to exams and, to top it all, I will not have any internet access for a while. Is there any chance you could fix Art Deco up according to your review, and then get another independent reviewer to go through the article, so as to avoid violating the WP:GAN policy? Thanks in advance, Elucidate ^{(light up)} 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You can withdraw the nomination. Would you like me to do that for you? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Answering your inline commented question. WP:CITE#HOW says...

Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

The help desk is usually a good place to ask such questions. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I gather that it is not all right to mix harvard with {{Citation}}? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you mean {{Harvnb}} and {{Citation}}; they go together rather nicely. The no-no is to mix {{Citation}} and {{Cite}}. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's not how I read the guidelines. To me it indicates that only a single format should be used within an article. Please elaborate, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it seems inconsistent. I knew they often are used together when the footnotes in the body were {{Harvnb}} and the full list of publications in the Bibliography or References are in {{citation}} style. But with {{citation}} mixed into the article body, the publications are also listed in the Bibliography, but the full information is again given in the footnote itself. I didn't know that it is ok in the article body to have some of the citations with {{Harvnb}}, hopping to the Bibliography and while those using {{citation}} do not. Therefore, some listings in the Bibliography never get "hopped" to, while others do. It seems to me less than optimal and inconsistent for an FAC. (Personal opinion.) Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think for FAC that might be flagged as a problem. The best solution IMO is to always put published sources (books, journals) into the bibliography section and only use the {{Citation}} template in the body of the article for things like web sources. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess I will take your suggestion and go to the help desk! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus's suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Using one consistent method in the body and another for the bibliography seems to make sense. Most of the references in the body will probably be web links. Those in the bibliography will, by definition, be offline publications and might benefit from a different format. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) Yes it does. But the FAC Major depressive disorder uses some {{Harvnb}} and some {{citation}} in the body of the article, resulting in the "hop to" inconsistency described above, even though the Feature article criteria state: "2(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended)."

Seems clear, but you never know! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Mattisse. I appreciate your assistance in dealing with that edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

Thanks for the help on Lockdown (2008). I did not notice the overlinking problems and I had no idea what to link to instead of disambiguity pages.--WillC 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you did a copyedit(?) to the above article, is it possible to do the same for Over the Edge (1999).--S_RX 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SRX, maybe later. Your article already looks very good! And it is about an interesting event. What are your goals for the article? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My goal is for it to be promoted as an FA. It is currently under peer review.--S_RX 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks good and I will run through the article. Since Lockdown (2008) has just entered FAC, I am not sure how the FAC people will regard another wrestling article so soon. Watch what happens there so you can see what their reaction is. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I will wait for that one to either be archived or wait for until it is in the bottom 5. About a month ago, there were 3 FAC's at the same time, which fed up the reviewers, only one passed. But I have experience with FAC, I contributed to helping pass SummerSlam (2003) and No Way Out (2004) to FA. OTE is unique from others due to the nature surrounding it, hopefully that can be seen at FAC.--S_RX 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't have time? =-)--TRU_CO 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Okay, I haven't really read the full MOS page, I have a short attention span and can't sit still for as long as it will take to read that entire thing. Thanks for the help. Also I'm not sure Sacrifice (2008) should be italicised. I believe there is a rule against that. I don't have the link for it, but I believe pay-per-view events such as Sacrifice do not fall under the category to have italics.--WillC 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the italics, as I saw it was not in italics at other places. The link I sent you basically says wikilink as little as possible. Only wikilink once to any given word. Do not wikilink common words that an English speaking person would know, not even countries that most people know. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the professional wrestling has had a problem with overlinking. I myself don't know when I've overlinked or not. I tend to try to figure out what would be quick reference and what isn't so I know. I linked Sacrifice twice in the aftermath because I believed the template fell under quick reference. I still have a long way to go before I know exactly what I'm doing on here. Almost been a year and I'm still learning, wikipedia is funny like that.--WillC 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have your talk page on my watchlist. If you want to reply here, I'll know. Every page I edit becomes automatically watched.--WillC 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. FAC is very difficult. I will try and help you out, but I don't know anything about wrestling, although I havecopy edited a few wrestling articles for GA. Also, I'm not sure how the FAC people will regard a wrestling article, if they think wrestling is a good enough topic for FA. I don't want to discourage you, but just prepare yourself. Is there a wrestling editor that can help you out with the FAC? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry dude, I don't really need any help. I'm mainly the only one who works on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling articles. I've worked on all 12 of their 2008 ppvs alone. I tend to work alone. Most of the time people want me to follow their example. I don't like that. I would rather follow the criteria and learn on my own. Me and a few editors from the project have disagreements on how many matches should be in the background. I think all that got enough attention that a good paragraph can be made while they disagree. Though some feed back on the prose would be nice. That has worried me. Been working on Lockdown since May of this year. It is all starting to sound the same.--WillC 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can go through it for prose issues. The FAC people will also point things out. I noticed one of them pointed out WP:ACCESS issues in an edit summary. Unfortunately, I could not tell what she meant, even after reading the WP:ACCESS page! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that GaryColemanFan helped you out. He is very good on wrestling. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he helped me with the GA review when the article was much larger. I don't have a problem with him, he agrees with me on the background problems. I've never heard of WP:ACCESS. I saw it and went, another article I'm going to have to read. I don't have much time in real life. That is why there are so many MOS problems. I really need to learn to sit still and read that page.--WillC 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the article, but I could not tell what was wrong with your article by the description given there. Basically, it is saying that article elements have to be in a certain order so that screen readers can read them. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It doesn't matter much to me what is changed, as long as I get it to FA. I've worked on the thing long enough and went to hell and back to get it to sound right. FA is the reward for all the hard work from May. I still have 11 more to go.--WillC 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For all your hard work on helping fix Lockdown during its FAC. You deserve this.WillC 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• You are very kind. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it is the least I can do for you helping me out.--WillC 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Faith Leech

Hello Mattisse, I have repsonded to your concerns. Thanks, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And some more. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Mattisse, I am so sorry that you have to put up with disrespectful users. Someone suggested that I nominate Puerto Rican scientists and inventors for "FL". I was wondering if you could please look it over and tell me what you think and if you have any suggestions. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you put a lot of hard work into it. I will have to bone up on featured lists, as I know nothing about them at all. Tomorrow, O.K.? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, take it easy and don't worry too much about my request, I'm not too much interested in the "FL" anyways. I'm a little hesitant to nominate any of my articles with the way things are handled here anyway. I can't tell you to not be discouraged with things here, just try to go back to basics, to what attracted you to Wikipedia in the first place. I remember last year when my admin powers were taken away and some people made some disrespectful remarks. I felt like hanging it up, but I put in too much into this project to leave. I told myself, to hell with everybody else and what they think, my mission here is to educate and share my knowledge. I know that my work has received international recognition and that is why I could care less if my articles are featured or not. I went back to doing what I enjoyed doing in Wikipedia in the first place. Don't let the those who act like children, who are making a big deal over an issue which should have been forgotten already get the better part of you and go back to the basics. What ever you decide I'm with you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK noms

Hey Mattisse, thanks for your comment at WT:DYK. I share your concern about keeping the DYK process from becoming too intimidating...I'm hoping that if we decide to design a template we can make it easy enough to be friendly for nominators, but still robust enough that reviewers won't have to clean up after a lot. I've left an example of what I'm thinking at the DYK talk page, so if you have any input I would really appreciate it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Way out of line comment

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is out of line, but sadly all too common these days, is an administrator threatening a punitive block almost eight hours after the alleged offence, contrary to wikipedia's blocking policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment to me, Malleus. The FAC crowd is tiresome. There was a long self-righteous rant against me on the FAC talk page, and a whole title "Mattise" on SandyGeorgia's talk page, asking her to please stop me from opposing that FAC. The result is a casual disregard for the truth in the article. The standards of FAC when it is submitted by one of their "own" are low - I have never been very tolerant of hypocrisy. Consider this a statement of my current bitterness. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, and I have no intention of getting involved with it, but it will be for SandyG to weigh the arguments put forwards both for and against its promotion. It's not something worth inviting a block over either way. Although administrators aren't supposed to issue punitive blocks, many of them do under one pretext or another, and from personal experience I can tell you that being blocked won't do much for your temper. Time to leave this one behind you now I think. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Casliber knew it was a joke anyway. 07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha) But do I still have to worry about a block from this guy? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? Administrators are only human, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and don't always look at all of the evidence before they act. I suggest ignoring it, the administrator, the MDD article, its FAC, and all those whose comments stung you, and get on with something else. You'll always be outgunned in a dispute with anyone who has their finger on the block button. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of admin threat of block for joke comment made to Casliber on my talk page, I will not be responding to any more Casliber posts on my page - Casliber, do not post on my page again

Because of a joking comment I made to User:Casliber on my own talk page:

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• From ANI:

07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha) Indeed it looks like he realized it was a joke, so I don't think this is worth all the fuss.[1]

I will not be responding to any more comments to Casliber because of the fear of being blocked. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The ANI thread says the block warning was unwarranted and it is a fuss over nothing. [2]

• [3]
• [4]

• Please note that neither CharlotteWeb nor Looie496 is an administrator, however, I and Gwen Gale [5] are administrators who believe such warning was proper. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm not a sysop but I would say that that comment deserved a warning, but not a threat of an immediate block. However, no personal attacks are allowed. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

His saying my comments were a joke does not matter, I guess, even though he harassed me on my user page and my "attack" was made there. He wanted me blocked because I voted "Oppose" on his FAC. I did not report his personal attacks on me. Admins do not block for me or protect me in any way, because I do not hobnob with admins. Although I am currently #147 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits I do not receive help from admins when I request it.

I have learned never ask for help or blocks when I am personally attacked. I was harassed by a group of sock puppets for six months and I was the one that got blocked. It was only by going through arbitration that the sock puppets were caught; the admins defended the sock puppets and punished me until the arbitration shut the sock puppets down. Well, I will merely contribute with less pleasure and joy to the project. This is why so many article contributors become bitter. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have editcountitis. Admins don't really care about editcount, they'll help anyone the same amount. What happened with the sockpuppets? Did you "yell" at them back? If so, then you both should've been blocked. You have to be civil... _David^WS _(contribs) 21:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have editcountitis now because that is all I have to cling to now. I know admins do not care about contributors and mine are in the article mainspace and not enough time on talk pages and voting for RFAs. No, I didn't "yell" at them, even when one told me to take a razor and stick up my ass. Mostly I was stalked and my articles were vandalized, redirected within 30 seconds of creation, that kind of thing. This was the sock puppet ring: Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati.

I had a couple 3-RR blocks before I understood that any edit counted for 3-RR; I thought I was just fixing my articles. When someone put a sock puppet tag on my user page, I reverted it; that editor complained to an admin. I was blocked until an ANI discussion was concluded in my favor. There are still articles of mine that were merged arbitrarily without discussion. I believe I got blocked for trying to have a discussion over the merge, as it was hard for me to believe that an admin didn't care about the merge rules. Now I don't write articles anymore. Since the sock puppet thing, I haven't had any trouble or blocks until now - this threat. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Stress

Dear Mattisse, I have tried to write this note several times, but the words are not coming to me easily. You are a respected, passionate editor. Please don't allow these recent events to hurt you. You have my respect and trust. This whole business has blown-up out of all proportion. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte, you are canvasing. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right, I'm canvassing for support by sending the note to all !voters, including you, who opposed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You know perfectly well no one has the nerve to "Oppose". It is a set up. The references are still out of date. Nothing to be proud of. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am a major contributor now. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments

Mattisse, I feel that you are doing your various causes an injustice at the FAC talk page. For example, fact-checking FACs is an excellent idea and it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that something like this is necessary by fact-checking a selection of articles. However, on Wikipedia you have to choose your battles. If you mention every single thing that you think is wrong with FAC and tie it directly to one article, your case will be less convincing than if you gather data from numerous articles and present your ideas for change slowly over time. Pick your moments. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I know you are well-meaning and I think highly of you. However, I have no desire to "prove" myself to FAC. Quite the opposite. I dislike FAC intensely. I will choose what I want to do there on my own terms. I do not want to be "liked" by FAC. It would feel odd to be treated with anything other than the familiar FAC hostility to which I have become accustomed. If I want to feel good, I go over to GA. Or copy edit for appreciative editors. FAC is not a feel good place. I guess you could say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." And, just in case Dweller is lurking, I am quoting so hopefully I will not be blocked for profanity. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that they had to pay extra money to say that word in Gone With the Wind? I believe it was $300. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, please understand that you are a valuable reviewer at FAC; you routinely identify issues with articles that other reviewers might miss and regularly help to improve articles to meet the FAC criteria. I respect your contributions to the process, and I know that many others do as well. I hope that you continue to be one of the quality reviewers. However, sometimes your comments do not come across well, and that can undermine how your points are received. If you could keep your comments at FAC centered on the criteria and the article, without making judgement statements or any statements directed at the nominators or other reviewers, then it is more likely that you will get a good response, and less likely for the FAC to degenerate into something that makes you, or others, uncomfortable (and also less likely that you would get any further warnings for incivility). Most of the regular reviewers don't feel that there is any regular "hostility" from FAC - from what I have seen, part of why you feel that way is because your comments are often very hostile as well. I would encourage you to take a long look at your own contributions and how they might have been interpreted by others, and see if you can continue your excellent reviews in a slightly more civil manner. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. Constructive criticism is what we all want and need at FAC (it's hard to earn a "support" from me). Next time I post a candidate article to FAC I want you and others to pick it to bits, because I want it to be the best it can be. I think this can be (and usually is) done in an atmosphere of colleagiality and with good nature, and with both sides prepared to listen / accept the others' arguments. I'd like to think my comments and opposes are done in this manner (feel free to check my contrib history as nominator or responder). FAC reviewers are an endangered species - I'd be sad if you chose not to continue reviewing. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To Dweller. Thanks for your response. Perhaps I misunderstood your actions. However, to say that I should have been blocked without warning for an admitted joke goes a little to far. Even if it was not obviously meant as a joke, it was a mild comment made on my own talk page in an attempt to lighten the atmosphere where I was facing an onslaught of posting from Casliber and friends. Your comment and threat were out of line, in my opinion. For that reason, I will stay clear of you. Sorry! But as Malleus Fatuorum, this is typical of the regular admin abuse of productive editors. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to make them. I know that you are trying to be of help to me and I have only good feelings toward you and your contributions. However, I did not get any "warnings for incivility". You are not characterizing the incident correctly. I make a joke on my own talk page, to try to lighten the atmosphere under the barrage of postings Casliber was making on my page. He recognized it was a joke, as brought out on AN/I. However, he used that comment to try to get me blocked for a "personal attack".

There is no incentive for me to change my FAC behavior. I have no respect for FAC. As I said (above) to Awadewit, who had similar suggestions: "I have no desire to "prove" myself to FAC. Quite the opposite. I dislike FAC intensely. I will choose what I want to do there on my own terms. I do not want to be "liked" by FAC. It would feel odd to be treated with anything other than the familiar FAC hostility to which I have become accustomed."

I won't go into why I feel hostility to FAC, but its does not stem from the hostility I receive. I recognize the hostility comes from my attitude, and I am not intimidated by it for the most part. When I see an FAC article being supported out of favoritism, usually I keep my mouth shut. Major depressive disorder happens to involve my profession and I did not refrain from commenting on gross inaccuracies in my own field of expertise.

My relationships with 99% of other editors (100% of those outside FAC) are cordial. I have no "incivility" problem. I would consider it demeaning to be part of the cozy FAC personal welfare club. I prefer the hostility. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks for the review. As you might have anticipated, I disagree with the bulk of what you said, but thank you for taking the time to review me, anyway. I have responded to the questions you left for me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)