User talk:Mattisse

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

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 19 20

• Quid pro quo list

Beilein

Did you miss my clarification request?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your position is valid. You are saying that, although the father can give his son a ride home, he is not allowed to ask his son if he wants a ride? He is not allowed to tell his son he has a flat tire? There is a reason why such quotations are not considered reliable sources for something like the NCAA rules. Find the NCAA rule book and quote it if you want to make a statement that sounds so ridiculous. That would be a reliable source. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am just seeing that you want me to quote the rule. I am going to go back digging.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation terminology

In response to your FAC comments, I attempted to fix Water fluoridation's terminology problems, and followed up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. Further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Force India VJM02 DYK hook

I added refs to the article, and replied to your comment here. Apterygial 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I took care of it on DYK. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Apterygial 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

Opinion needed on talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cloud Door

oh that'd be nice...no problem dude...go ahead. I hadnt heard of DYK till now...I, kind of, just edit on wikipedias. anyways, i havent removed that info...i hav just moved it below in the 'reception' section. thanks again --Anant Singh (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. And the info too. Regards, —Anant Singh (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK->Articles created/expanded on March 5->Forward Poland

Mattisse, hi! Re your check of Forward Poland here: I've increased the word count to what I think is 2000+ characters, ex spaces. Could you be so kind as to give it another pass? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. But I don't think you need all those headings. They detract from the article, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tablefied the "structure" section, thus reducing the headings. Hope that helps, regards Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cloud Door/Mani Kaul

Hello Mattise,
I was just going through your edits in The Cloud Door and am quite happy with the way you have constructed the Indian Film Festival part and the controversy. But I'm not quite sure if this was Mani Kaul's first erotic film. This was definitely the first one to have on screen nudity, but then, eroticism need not necessarily mean to have nudity. I think he has made an erotic film before this too. I'll see if i can find out anything about it online. Regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ziegler reference that we are using says "For the first time, despite a treasury of native erotic art and literature, an Indian erotic film had been made by Mani Kaul, the aesthete among Indian filmmakers, and could be seen at the festival."[1] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the site says so, but there have been instances, where an erotic film WAS made in India, that too before The Cloud Door. The only film thats coming to my mind right now is Utsav (1984) which was based on a play by Bhāsa and had Vātsyāyana (the author of Kama Sutra) as a principal character in the film. The film was erotic, just without any on screen nudity displayed by any of the actors. So, its quite debatable.--Anant Singh (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But was it made by Mani Kaul? Also, remember, Wikipedias mission is verifiability and not "truth". Unless you think the Ziegler site is unreliable, we can go with what we can find supported. In any case, we can reword it or remove it. We do need a reason to explain the threats of "riot" though. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

what if we reword it and mention about the Indian censor laws which do not allow on-screen nudity at all? due to that law, political parties and its workers do create problems in the screening of a particular work of art - Bandit Queen, Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love, Fire, M.F. Hussain's paintings of nude godesses, etc.. If its against the "law" then obviously it gives a reason to explain the riotin and all.--Anant Singh (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the Indian censor laws? Also, if you think of a better hook, you can add it (or I can add it) as

• alt ... that such and such and such?

As long as the hook is reliably sourced in the article, is under 200 characters, and is intriguing. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me search for a good reference...i'll think of the hook too. Regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't go

Mattisse, I wasn't attacking you. If you have any technical problems, then I can deal with them. I did not write the language of the piece. That is Liz. If you want her to change some of the phrases or colloquialisms, ask her. If you require grammar clean up and the rest, then mention them. It has been copyedited by four different people so far. Sure, there are things that are missed. There are things from the Johnson page that are missed until now. Can you please come back and help me find things that -I- can work with. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And Mattisse - I am sorry if I was brisk with you. You are a great reviewer. I just need something I can work with besides what appears to be "the wording isn't really appealing to me". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave specific examples from the third para of the lede, as did Fowler&Fowler from the first two paras. Those were examples. The whole article needs a good copy editing, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then go through and copy edit. Fowler threw out malformed jargon and showed that he did not know what he is talking about. He is also continuing to harp on something a long time after there was already a change. If you see some grammatical problems, feel free to change. Awadewit has done so already. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Java

I saw your comment at the Masten-Quinn House nom that you couldn't see the NRHP document. I can see it and I don't have anything "special". My guess is that your Java isn't up to date. Java's website has a tool to check if your version is the most current. Shubinator (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I did update it but I haven't tried the document again. Big documents, including PDF's often crash my browser, Firefox 3.0.7. The browser grows very pale and freezes! I'll try it and see what happens. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm also on Firefox 3.0.7. Let me know if it works! Shubinator (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just left you a message that it doesn't work, although my Java is up to date. Frustrating! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you could try IE, but I've got Firefox and it works for me. Java applets are generally more stable in IE than Firefox though. Do you get any error message? You could try opening the console (right click on java icon in system tray, click open console) to find error messages there. Shubinator (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I don't know how to work it. It has a digital signature error. If I run it anyway, it just shows some tiny thumbnails at the top. I can't manage to figure out how to make them large enough to read. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does have a signature error. When I open it there's a tiny window that takes up a third of the screen. It's a pain to read, but possible. Maybe try restarting to make sure the update's been processed? Anyways, I have to head out now. Shubinator (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation 2

Have you had a chance to read my response to your latest (March 3) comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation? Briefly, what I attempted to do was to be more-consistent about terminology in that article. I modified the article to following the source's use of the term "fluoridated water" to include both naturally and artificially fluoridated water, and the term "water fluoridation" to mean the act of artificially fluoridating water. Further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will look at the article again. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime the featured-article nomination has failed, with the nomination discussion archived to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation/archive1. I expect that the main problem for reviewers (and for me!) was burnout: we'd all looked at the article too many times. Anyway, I plan to nominate Water fluoridation again in a few weeks, as I have tried to modify it to address all the objections raised during nomination; so if you could follow up on Talk:Water fluoridation I'd appreciate it. Eubulides (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay, I looked for it and couldn't find it, so I figure it had been archived. I would not have supported it anyway. At the most I would have removed my Oppose. I hope in the meantime you clarify it. It remained confusing, not straightforward. I hope you won't be offended if I say that I question if you understood the complaints regarding it. I didn't feel like you understood my complaints. In fact, the article seemed to be deteriorating with every attempt to fix it. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did have some trouble understanding your complaints, yes. I didn't seem to have as much trouble understanding other editors' complaints, as the other twp opposes in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation/archive1 were withdrawn after we discussed the matter further. I attempted to address your complaints with several changes to the article. I also made the following comments in response to your complaints (I am reproducing them here for your convenience, as they're somewhat scattered throughout the FAC talk page):

• "... water fluoridation could be defined as fluoride in the water supply whether artificer or natural." Reliable sources don't use that terminology. The cited source, CDC 2001 (PMID 11521913), says "Fluoridated drinking water contains a fluoride concentration effective for preventing dental caries; this concentration can occur naturally or be reached through water fluoridation, which is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply." Following this source's distinction between (artificial) "water fluoridation" and (artificial or natural) "fluoridated water" should alleviate some of the confusion noted above. I did this by inserting the following immediately after the lead sentence:

"Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."

and then went through the rest of the article, systematically using the term "water fluoridation" to refer to artificial fluoridation, and "fluoridated water" to refer to either artificial or natural fluoridation. I hope this change fixes most of the confusion noted above. (Fluoridated water already redirects to Water fluoridation, which justifies emboldening the newly-added "Fluoridated water" in the lead.)

• "in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects other fluoridation methods in all cases" Can you please mention specifically which statistics have this problem? Effectiveness does contain phrases like "Compared to water naturally fluoridated at 0.4 mg/L, fluoridation to 1 mg/L ..." which attempt to make it clear that we are comparing fluoridation at recommended levels to fluoridation at natural levels. I did find that the article did not clearly state that fluoridation has a beneficial effect even in the assumed presence of toothpaste, so I added that (citing McDonagh et al. 2000); if you can mention other specific instances of confusing wording, I'd appreciate it.
• Reliable sources generally assume that fluoridated water's effectiveness doesn't depend on whether the fluoride is natural or artificial. This assumption has not been well-tested; however, I added to Effectiveness the York Review's comment that no differences between natural and artificial fluoridation was detected in the review, but the evidence was inadequate to reach a conclusion about this.

Eubulides (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I was unclear. As I said, the most I would have done was withdraw my Oppose, and I did notice that some who withdrew their Oppose were less than enthusiastic about the article and did not Support. Next time I will try to be clearer, but in reading through the comments of others, I felt that they had somewhat the same complaint. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Did the above-mentioned changes[2][3][4] improve the article? If not, perhaps we should revert them, as they were made in an attempt to fix the problems that you noted. Eubulides (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewording of The Cloud Door's Plot

Hello Matisse,
I'm not quite happy with the rewording of the plot as it actually gives out wrong information. the film is kind of an artistic flow of images and not everything is explained in it. its not really true that the parrot brought the lover out of gratitude; also, the lover just knows the name "kurangi' but doesnt know who she is...its his imagination, which is conflicted when he hears the captured parrot utter her name. anyways, i'll try rewording it and not make it look like a copy-paste. the problem is that i can write a plot synopsis having seen the film, but m not quite sure i can find suitable sources for that.
regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the plot to get rid of the copyvio as a temporary measure, as that was disqualifying the DYK. I believe the plot section does not have to be referenced for film, TV series etc. because it is considered a description and not an interpretation. So I believe you could factually describe the script without interpreting any of it and not need a reference. Alternatively, you could reword the cut/paste into you own words and use the same reference. The plot section should not be very long anyway. Just no copyvio/cut and paste. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 11:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

alright, no problem. will make the amendments soon. regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Asthma

Twinkle reverted some of my changes on your behalf as vandalism. I was actually trying to correct the complaint of redundancy raised in peer review. My changes have been restored. Let me know if I didn't do this correctly. Wrin (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had second thoughts after I did it, as I was overly hasty (due to recent vandalism of the article). So I step back. You are probably right. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cannibaloki 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Well, eh, thanks anyway ;) All you points were taken on board in a general sence, and not just with the specific instances you raised. About a month needed, I think, before we take it back. Onwards! Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement and the reassurance that I am not a bad guy! My intent was certainly not to deep six your article. And Fowler&Fowler is a very good editor, very conscientious. I am confused as to why, or even if, your article was removed. There was never an explanation, and it has not been archived, per the usual routine. Are you sure that it's disappearance from the FA list is not some kind of mistake? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was kind of a relief to be honest when it closed, I think once things get steamy its probably best to give it a rest. I have no porblem with an intense review once its constructive (actually thoes can be very rewarding given that they lead to vast improvement in a short space of time) but maybe we were beyond that. These things happen. (O and gimme hasn't run yet to archive closed noms is all). By the way I agree about Fowler&Fowler, he is being most helpful to us. Anyway, talk later. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Compliments to you on the way you handled the whole thing. You were very constructive all around and made me feel much better, and hopefully Fowler&Fowler also. I see that Awadewit is doing a great job editing the article. I predict your next run through will be a piece of cake! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey at FAR

Good evening, I am curious as to why you object to YellowMonkey being a delegate at FAR. I haven't spent much time over there, but I wonder if you had noticed anything troublesome that causes you to object. --Laser brain (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here to ask something similar. You can send it by email if you want. Raul654 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

When I say "it dealt more with off FAC matters" I was referring to the perceptions of the people attacking you rather than your actual actions. In your own words - "my perceived treatment". I hope that clears things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you very much. And I do appreciate your eloquent defense of me there. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Cloud Door

On 14 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Cloud Door, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet DYK and peer review

Hi Mattise, thank you for reviewing the DYK suggestions for Battle of Barnet. I have answered and taken action to help verify them. Please take a look. If you have the time, may I trouble you to take a gander at the article and leave comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hew Pike

Re:Hew Pike, can you clarify your comments here. The quote is from the last paragraph of the citation. Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the quote "cool example and inspiring leadership" was referenced as I understand it, by the website http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/49134/supplements/12844. However, although I could get the website only a few times out of several tries, the quote did not appear on the web page, as far as I could determine. Therefore, the quote was unsourced. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I be a pain and ask you take a second look. The quote is contained on the second column and is the last paragragh of Pike's citation, "Lieutenant Colonel Pike's cool example and inspiring leadership........etc. If there are still issues here I'll change the hook. Cheers Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked again, but this time I cannot get the webpage. Just the black bar that says "Gazette Issue 49134 published on the 8 October 1982. Page 14 of 36" but nothing under it. However, If you say that it is there, then I will take your word on good faith. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The page displays as PDF which has caused me issues in the past. I've just tried the page and it worked for me. The ref is defo there, I don't mind emailed a screen shot or the text if that would help Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Murray Chotiner

You may want to take another look at Chotiner. He is like Speer in a way, he is the kind of technocrat who was very good at what he did and was rather amoral. There's no redemption in Chotiner's story though, as there kinda is in Speer's and in Wolters' as well, come to think of it. I really like the nice little bit I dug up about his 1938 Assembly race, read it and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will. But I am sick to death of Nixon, and nothing seems new in the recent surge of Nixon info. And it was the fact that Speer was not unambiguously evil that made him interesting. (I noticed your "shocking" hook re Centre Praying Colonels football!) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like people like that. I wish I could find another Speer, but they are thin on the ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Rudolf Wolters has passed. That is a very good article also. Its quality was overlook at FAC. It is his ambiguity over Speer that makes him interesting. His behavior toward Speer has an emotional quality that is incongruous. Now if I read that Chotiner was genuinely fond of Nixon, that would be intriguing. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can find on that subject. Usually when I write about someone, he's left memoirs or letters or something. Chotiner did not. I think Wolters is still waiting an image review. Unless they question fair use on the ID photo, we shoudl be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is still waiting, but it will pass as things stand now. FAC reviewing has slowed to a crawl. I would vote except that I am named as a nominator. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It will be fine. Slightly to my surprise. I guess with Albert Speer's help, one can do anything, as Wolters himself said. After this I will nom Lane, and then Chotiner, probably. I really want that centennial TFA in October. The problem with Chotiner is that he never really discussed his inner feelings to anyone, that I can see, and there are implications in the White House tapes that he wasn't in the loop on Watergate, but nothing definite (of course, since he nailed Voorhis and Douglas, some saw him as evil incarnate on general principles) Haldeman told Nixon on the tapes that Chotiner wasn't "wired in", but I can't find any sources interpreting that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you already tried Lane? Are you going to do a "cram down"? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It had one support, no opposes when Sandy called time on it. I've done some work on it, mostly in article structure and images, and I'm prepared to try it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One support... Maybe you should wait until there is more activity on FAC. There are calls on the talk page of putting a do-or-die time line on FACs. It is so bogged down now. I will take a new look at Lane. But to be honest, I have not been able to read the article through so far. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If only interesting people got FA's written about them, then what's the point of having a complete encyclopedia? Incidently, I just bought some articles from the Washington Post, and they paint a very interesting view of Chotiner. Even the Post felt that Chotiner didn't know about Watergate. There's now the image of this guy who is a friend of Nixon but not really in the loop, and of course he turns out to be right when he calls Watergate "stupid". Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang rewrote the fair use rationale for the ID photo, so that means it is now unlikely to be a problem. Things look very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good. I should look at his wording so as to get good at writing those things. It deserves FA. However, regarding Lane, I am pessimistic. Remember, FA is "exclusive". Not every encyclopedic article can be a FA. Regarding Chotiner, maybe the only way someone could be a friend of Nixon's was not to be in the loop. None of the people in the loop seem to be friends of Nixon. I remember Kissinger telling the story way early on about seeing teeth marks on an child-proof aspirin bottle Nixon had tried to open one night in desperation. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Images are not my forte either. My articles seem to do better if there is some larger than life figure just offstage. Speer had his Hitler; Wolters his Speer. Woodes Rogers had his Robinson Crusoe. Lane has --nobody. I think when Chotiner is polished smooth by a month or so of just reading it over and over and polishing off the rough edges, the presence of Nixon just offstage will propel it thorugh FAC. You may be right on Lane, but I'm going down swinging. Incidently, I got interested in Lane while searching for "Saxbe fixes" to help out Tony. Lane didn't need one, he never served in Congress, but I routinely checked all of Wilson's cabinet officers and got interested in Lane. It is slightly ironic, Chotiner's involvement in an abortive scandal kept him away from Nixon for a time and let people like Haldeman and Mitchell get close. If Chotiner had been able to stay by Nixon's side, there might not have been a Watergate.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Chotiner had a moral compass? John Dean, the most intriguing (to me) of those around Nixon, either had one or saw that the jig was up and it was time to save himself. I rather think the latter was the case. Does Nixon still have the power to draw, as ultimately Hitler still does because there are still large aspects of his personality that have not been nailed down and questions remain open, like all charismatic individuals? Is that true of Nixon? He was not charismatic. Not a Che Guevara.—Mattisse (Talk) 03:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Chotiner had a moral compass, that there were lines he would not cross, and that is why in the White House tapes--well, read for yourself here. I think he would fight dirty, but would not lie, cheat, or steal.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Great transcript! But great because of Nixon's reactions. Oh boy! Never! The tape is interesting. Everyone thought Martha Mitchell was bats. No credibility. But Dean was another story. I think "moral compass" bodes ill for an interesting article. Your successful articles have been about ulimately incomprehensible people. Even Wolters, who was more knowable than most, still had his mysteries, although barely, hence the squeak through FAC. At least, that is my theory. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've desperately searched for any interpretation of what Haldeman and Nixon said about Chotiner but can't find any so I really can't use it in the article. I guess we will see. Lane is certainly understandable, the devoted patriot and public servant who worked himself into the grave, leaving his family poverty stricken because he worked for a miniscule government salary in the day before government pensions and the like. I actually feel I understand Speer quite a bit, maybe that is why I was able to write the article in such a neutral tone. Anyhow, I am going to bed, have to work in the morning. Thanks for your help and we'll see what happens with Lane, though I know you see him as dry as dust.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I even went to Chotiner's grave today and took a pic. About ten minutes from my house. The things we do for Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are obsessed! A nice grave, though. Elegant simplicity. How can it not been known whether Chotiner graduated from UCLA or not? I would start copy editing the article, but it looks like it is not ready yet. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done, you can start whenever you like. I'm at the stage where I just read it over and polish. NY Times says graduated, Wash Post says just attended for a year and then went to law school. Given the time constraints, I'm inclined to believe the Post. He would have had to start UCLA at age 13 or 14 at the latest, which I think possible but unlikely. Also, the Post gets a little more specific about it than the Times, which lends credability. Yes, Chotiner's grave was nice. A series of walls in recesses in the ground, most likely there are drawers behind them. NMP is a very spread out cemetery, given its location inside the Beltway. Land was probably cheaper then.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration comedy FAR

Mattisse, this comment by you assumes bad faith on the part of other editors. Your tendency to assume bad faith was recently discussed at a Request for comment on your editorial behaviour, and you appear to have agreed to stop making such assumptions of bad faith. Your failure to do so is problematic and interferes in the process of improving the encyclopedia. Please stop, and consider refactoring your comment above. Risker (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You misperceive my comment. You see me as acting in bad faith when I am trying to help another, innocent editor, hoping that he will not end up as confused and desperate as I did when I wandered unprepared into the ugliness of those disruptive attacks by a long standing editor. If someone had helped me in the beginning, perhaps I would have been able to see it all in perspective: that this disruptive editor is protected and and allowed to continue, while you take the time to warn an editor such as I am, is a failing of Wikipedia in my eyes.

In the RFC you point to above against me, none of the allegations received wide community support. That RFC was an example of bad faith against me by another editor. I remind you that I voted against you in the ArbCom election specifically because I see you as protecting entitled editors on Wikipedia, specifically the editors I think you are alluding to your post above. I commented at the time of my vote that this was the case. The three editors involved in the above "warning" from you about my assumption of bad faith, have repeatedly assumed bad faith on my part, one to the extent of taking out that RFC against me, the other two by tag teaming and making a joke of my two FARC nominations and by repeated personal attacks against me, the most recent here:[5] (This editor, until a few days ago, had an RFC open on him per Arbcom for just such behavior.) Since among the sins listed in the RFC against me were these two FARC nominations, and since one resulted in a delist, it would make the RFC accusations seem in even more clearly in bad faith if the second FARC also resulted in a delist. Now the generator of the RFC is stating once again that the second article should not result in a delist, although he has done nothing to help the article in the 1 1/2 months it has been on FARC, while he has generated a plethora of new articles and DYKs in the meantime. If you read through the FARC, you will numerous comments assuming bad faith on my part. You did not comment or intervene to help me at any of those points. Consequently, I do not see you as neutral in this matter. Therefore, I think in the interest of fairness, neutrality, and avoiding the appearance of bias, you should refrain from commenting about me in this matter. Perhaps you might address the recent uncivil behavior of this same editor toward another, innocent editor on FARC [6] rather than protecting this long standing editor with a record of incivility. This persistent behavior, despite an arbitration case and the recently closed RFC, is far worse than anything I am doing. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Giano II

Hi Mattisse. Can I please request that you stop "warning" Giano II for personal attacks directed at yourself. It is clearly unhelpful and serves only to inflame the situation. Please recognise that warnings from you are unlikely to be well-received by Giano. If you wish to draw attention to a problem, it would be more effective and sensible to request input at the administrators' noticeboard rather than taking it on yourself. Your attempting to deal with the situation yourself only inflames it. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would warn him about his disruptive editing, specifically his calling my editing trolling. He and his band of editors have disrupted my ability to edit for Wikipedia and made my attempts to improve the encyclopedia an unhappy experience. I have already been warned by one ArbCom member, Risker, who assumed bad faith on my part because I tried to help another editor who was on the receiving end of Giano's disruptive editing. That is what provoked me to warn Giano. I would have ignored his personal attack against me if Risker had not warned me, assuming bad faith. I voted against Risker in the ArbCom election because of Risker's protection of this entitled editor's disruptive editing. If you will get him to leave me alone, then I will certainly do as you request. Why are disruptive editors like Giano allowed to continue, whereas I am never protected from his personal attacks? I don't understand. Perhaps you could explain. I am wondering why editors are not treated equally. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Giano's comments because I do not fully understand their context. They are obviously made in the context of a long-running dispute and I do not know it well enough to form an opinion. Saying that someone is "trolling" is not self-evidently a personal attack. As it is, you can make the situation better by stopping giving him "warnings" that do nothing but inflame the situation and further the dispute. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you fully understand the context of my comments? Have you looked into any of this at all or are you acting without knowing? Please explain. I have seen in other places that calling a person a troll or their work as trolling is a personal attack. I will ask on ANI if this is true, if you dispute that it is, as I find being dismissed as a troll very disturbing. He threatened an editor who was in a mentoring role with me. If Giano did not hinder my ability to work on Wikipedia I would ignore him. I did ignore much of what he did originally, like the personal attacks and blanking an article because I edited it, not knowing it was his article—in fact, before I knew about his articles and that they cannot be edited as normal Wikipedia articles. Both Risker and now you weight in for Giano. Why am I the one who has to put up with harassment when ArbCom has ruled on Giano's behavior? I do not understand why he is protected. I know that I went for a couple of years never warning people when I was personally attacked. I learned that I was at a disadvantage because I did not warn. I had no diffs to prove anything. I found the results are better if I am not so passive, because in the end I am powerless if I do not protest. Should I leave Wikipedia? Is that what you are implying, as I am not to be respected as an editor, not given the benefit of the doubt like others, and not allowed to protect myself? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are twisting my words beyond recognition. I have no opinion on Giano's remarks, therefore I am not defending him or supporting him; I am not "weighing in on his behalf". I am requesting you take this dispute elsewhere rather than attempting to "warn" Giano yourself when anyone can see that that will not have a positive outcome. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"You are twisting my words beyond recognition." Obviously, I do not understand what you are saying or what you are doing. You need not assume bad faith on my part because I do not understand. Perhaps you need to be clearer. It seems to me that you are taking a side, that you are biased, that you are not helping me, that you are protecting a known disruptive editor at my expense. I do not see the usefulness of what you are doing to Wikipedia. Please explain so that I am not "twisting [your] words beyond recognition". You are not saying that it is ok to repeated refer to another editor's edits as "trolling"? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am simply asking that you cease the conversation on Giano's talk page, as it is unhelpful and will not be profitable. I am saying no more than that. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If he attacks me again, I will warn him again. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Good faith is infectious

Hi Mattisse, at FARC yesterday you noted my participation at your RFC. Most of my post there was an exercise in good faith, and a request to the editor who opened the RFC to assume better faith in you. If that earned a little goodwill, then thank you. One of the ways that goodwill spreads is to share more of it.

Casliber's request for ten days does come a little tardy; you have a point there. Yet Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. It's so much more gracious to say 'yes, best wishes with that' and hold back from expressing minor misgivings. The article will get better (let's all hope) and the good faith may come back from more directions. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bad faith implicit in that RFC was shocking and has made me more callous, I fear, but also more realistic. I see now the Emperor is nude. He is wearing no clothes! Although "a little tardy", Casliber's request definitely is more weighty than all those other editors who bothered to assess the article objectively and weigh in with a considered opinion. So it will be a huge blow to his credibility if he does not massively improve Buckingham Palace now. That would be a very good thing, as that article needs to be excellent if Wikipedia is to fulfill its responsibility to its readership, including school age children. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The best way you could repay the good faith I had in you at RFC would be to extend a little more good faith in others. Or at least--if you really are jaded--perhaps a change of pace with content work? I'll be starting a featured content nomination in the next hour (not an article though); it helps keep a sense of balance to concentrate on the positives when wiki conflicts get frustrating. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have very good relationships with almost all editors. I get along very well at GAN, DYK, and even FAC. It is only the clique on that particular article at Featured article review where there is a problem. Even other articles being reviewed there, such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paleolithic diet I have no problems. Read my talk page if you doubt that. I dislike being accused of persistent bad faith when no one else has that problem with me outside of that clique of editors. What do you suggest, besides just accepting abuse from those particular editors? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Patience, along with eventualism and fairness, often go a long way. Usually between established editors, even people who usually disagree with each other will have natural moments here and there when they see eye to eye. It's good to recognize those moments. Combined with that, drawing the line politely yet firmly on inappropriate behavior, and using site processes. About three years ago when hardly anyone knew me and I was coping with two very difficult people (both of whom later got sitebanned), I started an essay that was basically a set of reminders of the person I wanted to be. If you haven't already read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, have a look. Quite a few people have added to it since then. Durova^Charge! 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read it many times but will read it again. However, those who condone and encourage Giano are only harming Wikipedia and article quality. Buckingham Palace remains a disgrace because Giano is encouraged to intimidate others to get his way. A poorly written FA will remain, an article that should be a shining jewel on Wikipedia, hardly a situation to condone. Denial is a very effective defense mechanism for those who employ it. I am not a Pollyana and do not think that all of Wikipedia's problems can be swept under the rug. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)