User talk:Mattisse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rdsmith4 (talk | contribs) at 06:59, 2 September 2006 (Sockpuppetry). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SEFA

Please append to User talk:Anthony Appleyard what you think is wrong with the page SEFA, instead of merely a partial attempt at recommending it for deletion and not finishing the process. This sort of breathing set DOES exist, and I have seen them. If the initials SEFA are also the name of something else, please put in a disambig link to the other meaning. Anthony Appleyard 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Mattisse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I have de-speedied Michael Klein. If the guy played 90 times for Romania, he's a top-level soccer player. Not only is that an assertion of notability, it's probably good enough notability for the article to end up being kept. Just letting you know.

Again, welcome!  Mangojuicetalk 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mindwandering

Hi Mattisse. Like you, I found the mindwandering article to be a bit of a mess, and not a mainstream concept in psychology (see my userpage for why my opinion might matter, if only a little). I did some web searching and found that, although the concept is not mainstream, it seems to have a growing importance, as measured by the American Psychological Association having a symposium on the topic this year (see the mindwandering talk page). Giving user Jonsmallwood2004 the benefit of the doubt, I have suggested some ways in which the entry can be cleaned up, and better linked up with existing research in cognitive neuroscience. However, I am waiting for some sign from him (I assume he's a he) that he wants some such help. Otherwise, I would be in favor of a delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Edhubbard (talk • contribs) Edit: oops... sorry, I'm normally good about that Edhubbard 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matisse, I have now worked with the author of the mind-wandering entry, and I think that it is much more up to Wikipedia standards. That doesn't mean that it's perfect, but at least it should now be a target for improvement, rather than RfD (I've removed the tag, but please take a look). I have also taken some time on the talk pages to explain some of the wikipedia policies (on the talk page), and why they are in place. He seems to mean well, but needs some sheparding. Edhubbard 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matisse, I'm going to cut and paste a bit from your talk message to me, so that which parts I can reply to right now are clear:

However, APS is not the APA -- it's the group of experimental psychologists that split off and formed its own association in the 1980's or so because it felt APA was too focused on clinical psychology.
Agreed. That was just a "thinko"... not a typo, but a sort of similar automatism. I've corrected it. Edhubbard 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you link to Psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience when none of those articles even mention mind wandering.
I was under the impression that the small entries should be cleaned up, and well-written before someone starts linking to the large articles. At this point there is a link from the attention entry, which I had originally deleted, but after being convinced that this was a reasonable topic, with some actual scientific research behind it, I changed my mind and reinstated the link that I had deleted. Similarly, the connections between the behavioral manifestations of mindwandering and neuroscience and computational models would seem to qualify it as an example of cognitve science. Edhubbard 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, your link is to a APS Symposium page that does not mention mind wandering.
Actually, the page states in the abstract for the symposium "What are the consequences of losing control over one’s thoughts in dreamlike mentation? The symposium will address this issue by presenting research on mindwandering, hypnagogic mentation, and dreams. Special attention will be given to suppression-induced rebound effects that might underlie clinical symptoms such as insomnia and posttraumatic nightmares. (emphasis added), and one of the talks is titled "A Cognitive Neuroscience Investigation of Mindwandering and the Experience of Stimulus-Independent Thought." (again, emphasis added) Edhubbard 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The general issue is interesting, but mind wandering just is not a psychological term, not in DSM-IV etc. so I wish you would keep psychology out of it -- unless you make it clear that you are talking about Experimental Psychology which APS represents. I'm pretty vigilant on this issue of inappropriate references to psychology in Wikipedia articles.
Yeah, I agree that there is a distinction between Experimental Psychology and Clinical Psychology, but I don't think that either one of them should have a unique claim to "Psychology". My PhD is in Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Science, and indeed, in my department at UC San Diego, we didn't even have a Clinical section. I also don't think that the DSM-IV should be the final arbiter of what is and is not "Psychology", since that only refers to what can go wrong. If the DSM were the final arbiter, then none of the terms in Behavioral Psychology, and many of the terms in Cognitive Psychology (which attention is a subfield of) would be counted as psychology. I will try to make it clear that we are referring to something in the subfield of Cognitive Psychology. Edhubbard 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insomnia, attention-deficit etc. perhaps are more relevant and gets you into the medical, neurological and neuropsychological literature.
Indeed, those are additions that might be interesting, and perhaps we can ask Jonny to add to those particular topics, although again, my point is that the article is at least no longer a complete mish-mash worth of RfD. Edhubbard 23:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matisse, I know the feeling... believe me. I've stopped telling people on planes that I'm a psychologist! :-) I'll try to shephard the article into a better format, and you are right to stress that it should be made clearer that this is a topic within experimental/cognitive psychology, since there's no reason to assume that people will understand psychology to mean one or the other without it being specified. Edhubbard 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V.F.D. Codes

Why did you think this was a hoax? Although I wasn't done with the article, it was pretty clear that it was part of the WikiProject for the Series of Unfortunate Events. Have you ever read the books? Or seen the movie? Or seen a commercial for the movie? (Clamster5 19:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Trunk Space

Please refer to Talk:Trunk_Space. PT (s-s-s-s) 19:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charisma

I changed the refs for Castro finding a couple of academic pieces which link Castro directly to Weber's Charisma concept. Hope you don't mind. Thanks for bringing that up.--Zleitzen 03:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxage

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. - Mike Rosoft 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking that much time to reply. Anyway, I didn't delete the article Sandboxage as vandalism, but rather as an editing experiment conducted in article space. (See the speedy deletion criteria.) If you want the page back, I can re-create it as User:Mattisse/Sandboxage. As for using the Wikipedia sandbox, it's simple. Just go ahead and edit the page, as long as you don't remove the header (or post obviously inappropriate material, such as copyrighted text from another website, or attacks against Wikipedia users or other people). Regards, Mike Rosoft 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the only problem with the page was that you have created in the article namespace (Sandboxage), and not as a subpage of your user space (such as User:Mattisse/Sandboxage). You seem to already know how to create user subpages, so if you want any more advice, go ahead and ask. - Mike Rosoft 23:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; I have already linked to it. The link is Wikipedia:Namespace.
In fact, it is quite simple. If a page has no prefix (such as Radio), it is in article namespace (which is to be used for encyclopedia articles). Other pages have prefixes (such as "Wikipedia:", "Template:", etc.); use of these namespaces is explained here. Your user space consists of User:Mattisse, User talk:Mattisse, and their subpages (such as "User:Mattisse/something" or "User talk:Mattisse/whatever").
Hope this is clear enough. Regards, Mike Rosoft 00:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for twenty-four hours per my findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Listerin. On the conclusion of the block please feel welcome to edit constructively within the confines of a single account. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't going to give a reason why we should consider unblocking you early, I'll assume you are adding the unblock tag to be annoying and just protect this page. --pgk(talk) 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not giving a reason because I don't know how to. Somewhere it said put {{unblock}} on your talk page so I could contact the administer. But I don't know how to give a reason. Please explain the process to me.

Just write the reason here like you have that text. --pgk(talk) 21:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you say here, you mean right here? The problem is that I am not understanding what is happening. Maybe I am over my head. I was editing (I thought) in the April 2006 wikify backlog list when I was blocked for being disruptive. I have tried to give good edit summaries to explain everything that I do. I guess this was not enough. I don't know what to explain. That is all I know to say because I'm not understanding.
Your block was because of Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Listerin, where it has been checked and found that you are using multiple accounts . Although using multiple accounts is not against the rules using them to for things like voting in the same disussions and make your opinion seem better supported than it acutally is, is against the rules. --pgk(talk) 22:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not using multiple accounts. I was upset because of all the attacks and nastiness I was receiving and the rfc that we did on the user who was doing it is still open and he was never blocked, though the Fidel Castro talk page is still a mess because of him. I did start a new account because I realized that having a name that sounded female was targeting me for attacks. But then I forgot the password to that account and hadn't put an email address in so I couldn't get it back. So I asked to have my old account changed over to a new non-female name with the password I knew. Plus I wanted credit for all the edits I had done. I've been trying to work hard on Wikipedia to build up a good edit history. But if this is the result, then O.K., I accept it. I wanted to think I was accomplishing something and some acknowledgment for working hard on edits but I realize, realistically, that's not the way it works. I'll miss the friends I made by working well with them but I won't die. I received lots of emails from people who were sympathizing with what was happening to me before, and one person explained to me that Wikipedia is make up of really young aggressive guys. I can see that I'm not up to it. I turn 65 years old in a few months. I'm not up to this. Doesn't matter, really. I give up.

honeybee dance language AFD

Good evening. There have been some new facts and evidence presented in the discussion since your last edit. When you have a minute, would you mind taking the time to revisit the discussion? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quit Matisse

Please don't give up Matisse. I agree that Wikipedia does unfortunately consist largely of really aggressive young guys who are often a pain as we well know - but your contributions so far have been extremely valuable. It is thanks to users like yourself that the level of discourse rises above the schoolyard. Maybe take some time away from controversial page deletions and get your teeth into something less stressful for a while! I was blocked in error before by someone over half my age which nearly sent me away - I didn't even receive an apology either. But one forgets about it and soldier's on! --Zleitzen 23:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. On looking at the people accused of being your sockpuppets they seem to be the very people who have voted against you on school articles, so my guess is that the block was in error. Hopefully the wisdom of years will help you deal with the youngsters. It might be wise to stay clear of AfD especially the School articles which can often turn into a battle ground. Hope to see you back. --Salix alba (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind the block was for conclusive technical evidence that Mattisse used multiple accounts to try to sway AfD discussions. See WP:SOCK Kevin_b_er 02:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen all the evidence and yes - Matisse broke the rules. But there is a backstory to the name changes and sockpuppets due to uncivil behaviour directed at her in recent times - (see [1]) including during the Afd process (see [2]). I believe the block was as a result of naivity of the process rather than wanton disruptive behaviour (see [3]). It seems a shame that a good contributor like Matisse was blocked and rather poorly spoken to above I believe, while much of the awful behaviour that goes on at this site on a regular basis goes unchecked. --Zleitzen 02:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was certainly being bullied and falsely accused of bad faith at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent-Meridian High School. I encouraged her to start an RFC, but she seemed to find the process confusing, and I didn't want to find myself bullying her into facing the bullies. See especially User_talk:Jmabel#Re:_If_you_wish_to_start_an_RFC and following sections. These will eventually be archived at User talk:Jmabel/Archive 38#Re:_If_you_wish_to_start_an_RFC and following sections. - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you haven't given up Matisse! I hope you manage to avoid accusations and controversy in your future work on the site. Good luck and take it easy. --Zleitzen 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tags

Mattisse, While it is most appreciated that editors tag articles for speedy deletion, it is important that the tag not be added just because you guess it might be a problematic entry. For example, you tagged Inkjet printable dvd with the reason as "Nonsense, I believe". If you do a Google search on just that phrase, you will find that it is a real product. Please take the time to do a little checking before nominating articles for speedy deletion. — ERcheck (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to you over the faulty speedy delete tag. My motivation to put effort into doing good, conscientious work on Wikipedia has evaporated. I've stopped wikifying and clearing out backlogs, I've stopped working seriously on articles and checking for copyvios. And I will stop the speedy deletes too. I admit the level of my work has fallen off drastically and I doubt the desire to do professional work will return. Mattisse 09:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions are appreciated. My comment was meant to help you improve your speedy delete tagging (see Criteria for speedy deletion for more info). I do hope you will continue to contribute in whatever area(s) you feel most comfortable. — ERcheck (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Exanimus

It is not a good idea to add {{prod}} to pages where they have being removed, even if it is by the page's creator. Instead of WP:PROD, it must be WP:AFD. Thanks. Computerjoe's talk 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this can be speedied as G4 due to a prior AfD-ed CSD A8 deletion! Computerjoe's talk 18:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exanimus. Also try reading WP:DP. :) Computerjoe's talk 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hi Mattisse. I notice that you nominated Dodgyism for speedy deletion as a hoax. Unfortunately "hoax" is not one of the criteria for speedy deletion. I've used the {{prod}} tag on this article instead. Thanks, Gwernol 21:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about it. It looks like a pretty awful article and needs to be removed. Just trying to make sure we get the process right. Keep up the good work, Gwernol 21:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Religion

Yo Mattisse, you wrote "This is Kriegman at work again . . ." Please note that Goethean removed all of my unreferenced/unsupported material from this article, cutting it down to almost a stub. While it is true that I then made five edits, not one changed the content or made any significant modifications to Goethean's editing. All of my recent edits were either minor (grammar) or supplemented Goethean's edits by finding the missing links he referred to. That's all I did. While I believe that after Goethean's edits, the article is now well referenced with no claims that are not supported by reputable external sources, I think—and if you take another look, you might agree—that it would be unfair to characterize my recent input as "This is Kriegman at work again . . ." with the implication that my current editing input is the same as earlier work on this (or other) articles. With these thoughts in mind, would you be willing to take another look and reconsider your view of my input into this article? Kriegman 12:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you cannot capitalize "source" or "religion" or WP doesn't recognize it. I will try to fix that. Here it is: Open source religion. Hmmn. That's weird. There is a minor inconsistency in the WP that creates this confusion. In the search box, "Open source religion" and "Open Source Religion" are treated equivalently. However, when editing Open Source Religion is not the same and will only lead to Open source religion if a redirect to Open source religion is placed on the Open Source Religion page (which I did). Kriegman 13:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

That does seem much clearer and better referenced. I haven't finished checking the whole article out yet -- but your second footnote doesn't work. Since it is a Boston Globe article, maybe you can get it directly from them. Some articles they leave up forever. Mattisse 13:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that wasn't my second footnote. I noticed that it didn't work and I didn't know what to do about it. We could just list the reference/source without a link to the actual article as apparently the Globe did not leave it up. Alternatively, there is a copy of the Boston Globe article on the Yoism website that could be linked to. I didn't dare place such a link in the article as I thought it would be seen as another attempt to promote/link to Yoism. This is the link so you can view the article and put the link into OSR if you feel it is appropriate. (I'll place this note on the OSR talk page as I did with my earlier comment.) Kriegman 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

It seems to me using that link would be O.K. since it seems clearly to be a Boston Globe article and copyrighted as such. Mattisse 13:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that, though I agree that the link should be added, I am avoiding any editing of OSR that could be construed as self-promoting. So, if you want to add the link, please do. Kriegman 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

Why do people have to know what Reboot is? And the Boston Globe article is a quote from you! The Yoams have to be a real phenomenon over and above you and articles about you. The concept of open source generalizing beyond the computer world is an interesting one, and perhaps genuine as some of your references suggest. Why don't you write an article giving several examples of open source generalizing to other areas. Open source religion could be one example, but you would need other verifiable examples that are independent of you. Mattisse 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Reboot: That anchors in time and place the attempt to develop that particular open source religion. Regarding the Boston Globe quotation: Note that the Wikipedia article does indicate that the quotation is merely a "claim" by Yoans, i.e., there is a clear indication that this is simply a statement by a participant (in this case, me) or something found in their literature. That simply is the same as any other article that quotes someone involved with creating something or describes what an ogranization claims to be. The fact that it was reported in a major newspaper is the indication that the organization has some verifiability beyond the ego of one person. In fact, the writer did research the group and didn't publish the article until he sent a photographer out to document an actual Yoan gathering. Regarding other open source phenomena, there already is a general article on Open source culture, which links to the OSR article. Kriegman 15:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Boston Globe article and permissions: I don't know (I'm not sure who posted the article). But is that a criterion for an external link from the WP? If so, there are many thousands (possibly millions) of external links without verified copyright permissions. That seems to me to be beyond the scope of what the WP can be responsible for. Let me know if this is indeed a problem and I will try to find out the answer. Kriegman 22:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I don't know of a link at the Globe that wouldn't be a dead end for the reader, i.e., it would be a sign up and pay-per-view page that very few readers would utilize. Is there a WP policy about external links and this issue? Kriegman 03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future events

Hey, some future events/games/movies can be included: taking they are notable and verifiable. Computerjoe's talk 16:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team

Hi there. I have a quetion about the following information you placed in the article:

I was wondering what links were of concern. If you could let me know perhaps I can explain the rationale behind them or at least fix them up. AnnieHall 21:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. AnnieHall 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

importance of Jawed Karim article

Is mentioned is a Notable Alumni at two university articles and is cofounder of a website that is in the Top 10 websites in the United States. I removed your importance tag. Trendsettler 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawed Karim

added references. BoseMaster 12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Home

I've added some sources to the article to establish importance and verifiability, and listed a few more on the talk page if that's not sufficient. Just letting you know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sisi article

[this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sisi_syndrome&oldid=68612829] is where your comments from the talk page were cut & pasted onto the article page. It was done by User:Seethe303, who has not edited any article other than this one. Maybe a newbie snafu, don't sweat it. Garrie I got there from the village pump, you seemed uncertian about how your name got in article space. it isn't in article space any more. I suggest that rather than deletion the article should remain as a "medical myths" article (there are plenty of myth articles here, this is a myth which has been rigorously studied and proven to be a myth - unlike many of the internet myth articles which are on here).Garrie

Uggg

If you're going to tag up an article like you did to AppleSearch, at least have the courtesy of putting your objections in the talk page. It's precisely this sort of "drive by tagging" that ruins all too many articles.

I have no idea what you are complaining about specifically, but apparently you feel it's so bad it should get FOUR tags that take up almost as much space as the article itself. But lets see if you can explain yourself:

The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement.

How, exactly. What parts of the article "real like an advertisement", and what should I do to fix this?

seems not to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia entry.

Which parts in particular do you feel are not formal?

Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable

Which parts in particular?

This article is missing citations and/or footnotes.

Except for the one I provided at the end, you mean?

I don't want to come off all negative here, but if your aim is to comment on problems in an article, please comment on the problems in the article!

Maury 12:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AppleSearch

Hey -- WP:SOFTWARE is really about when software is a topic appropriate for Wikipedia. In cases like AppleSearch, where notability is pretty clear, the policy you should stress (and it's POLICY, not just a guideline, let alone a proposed one) is verifiability. WP:V is critical and not up for discussion. Basic claims can be backed up by AppleSearch's documentation, but other stuff has to be backed up by actual research. I'm sure stuff was written on it in magazines like MacWorld, it just may not exist online and may be a pain to find. Encyclopedia writing can be hard sometimes! Mangojuicetalk 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Seavus Group

Hi, I've got a comment on the article posted for Seavus Group. Namely, it has been pronounced as advertising, however so far, I've seen lots of corporations menioning their services, history and significance within the industry. My idea is not to promote the company, but the technology behind, contributing to further IT development. Please note that this article will be further updated with those technologies.

Also, I would like to ask you if there is any chance or comment to how to make this article look like non advertising bit.

Ivan 14:25, 12 August 2006 (CET)

New Blogism

Hi Matisse, I took a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#New Blogism. It is a little confusing. What you are seeing is a debate that your posting triggered. Much of it is not really directed at you but is a discussion between admins about the nature of hoaxes. For what its worth, I believe George is wrong in his interpretation of the Speedy Deletion criteria, and will add my comments to the board.

Your original complaint was that Leffe had disrupted the AfD. I have to say you have overreacted. All User:Leffe did was put his opinion in the debate at the top of the list instead of the bottom. This is a rookie mistake that could easily have been fixed by moving his comment to the correct location and leaving a polite reminder in your edit summary. Note that this is the edit that Leffe made. It seems likely that Leffe did remove your comment to him here. However in general its not a good idea to leave comments like the one you did in an AfD debate; your comment was about user's action on the AfD, not about the subject being debated. That comment should have been left in the edit summary when you moved it to the bottom. At best it should have been in the AfD talk page or on Leffe's talk page. Putting it into the middle of the AfD debate was confusing and unnecessary. While Leffe probably was unwise to remove it, he wasn't basically wrong. You certainly did not have grounds to take this to the ANI noticeboard. I can see why some admins got a little grumpy when you posted it; it was a minor incident and you were as much in the wrong as Leffe.

I agree with you that people can seem unfriendly sometimes on Wikipedia which is why we have rules about civility and don't bite the newcomers. Unfortunately it seems to me that you have fallen astray of the second of these in this instance. If you had simply moved Leffe's comment instead of making a big deal out of a simple mistake then none of this would have happened. I don't see you assuming good faith about the actions of others.

The good news is I believe you followed the correct procedure in filing the AfD against the New Blogism article. Despite the dispute it was correctly deleted at the end of the process, so the outcome is good. You do, however, owe Leffe an apology. Good luck, Gwernol 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data Software Research Company

Hey I was going through the Category:Category needed backlog and found this article which you prodded. And it's a clear copyvio so I was wondering if I should tag it for copyvio or just leave it prodded. Whispering(talk/c) 00:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gambino Crime Family

Mattisse - I see you have added the verification and citations tags to the Gambino crime family article, but you don't appear to have indicated why. Simply adding these tags is unhelpful - please indicate on the discussion page of the article the specific information you believe to be missing or which you feel requires referencing. The Mafia is a difficult subject to find accurate references for, for obvious reasons, but if you feel specific information requires references then please do contribute to the article's discussion page. Thanks. C i d 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re documenting crime families

I wrote an article on the Mafia in my area (which is not nearly so notorious as the Gambino family). I found plenty of websites devoted to the Mafia, serious websites with information collected over the years. Yes, it does take some looking. But it is amazing what is there.

Available also are criminal records and other public documents, police reports etc. and many well-referenced books. Also, in your case, there must be many newspaper articles. I found some for mine even. When my article was written, everything in there was documented. I was writing for a serious publication so it had to be that way for fear of being sued. Mattisse(talk) 15:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but simply to add these tags to the top of the page without specifying where you believe the misleading or incorrect information to be does not help the page, it simply clutters it up. If you can specify exactly where you believe citations are required I will be more than happy to look at finding them. However, I would like to point out that this isn't 'my' article any more than any page on Wikipedia belongs to anyone else - so feel free to find the citations yourself. C i d(talk) 11:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starwood Festival family of articles

Howdy. While cleaning up links to the "Celtic" disambiguation page (You can help!), I stumbled onto the first of many advertisement "articles" with links to Starwood Festival. Thanks for all your work on these over the last few days or so. Frankly, I think you were maybe too easy on them. It seems to me that most could just be nominated for deletion. But at least adding the advert template is a start. --Sean Lotz 11:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deserve an apology

I recently did a "what links here" to AppleSearch and was surprised to actually see the page linked to several user talk pages. When I followed these links I was even more surprised to see what was there.

What I saw was this statment...

"The creator says he does not have to follow any of Wikipedia's policies about notability, reliable sources, etc. because Apple Computer has already done that".

This is a bald faced lie. I never said, or implied, anything even remotely like this. I said your tagging was inappropriate and asked for clarification. You did not provide clarification, instead you suggested the article be deleted and then came up with some completely other set of arguments, also baseless. Twice. It's right here on your own talk page, and the article Histories preserve it all.

The amazing part about all of this is that you actually seem to believe you are doing some good here. You've violated the wiki's own policies by tagging without comment, yet seem to feel that I'm the one doing something wrong.

We all welcome edits, but if those edits are inappropriate they should be removed, just as if they were graffiti. If you feel they are appropriate, then you simply have to defend them. That's how the wiki is supposed to work. I'm sorry if you don't feel you could defend your edits, but that pretty much means they should be removed, by definition.

But you know what? I don't care about any of that. It appears you've grown bored of the article anyway. But I simply will not stand for someone taking pot-shots at my honor in public, especially if they misrepresent what actually happened.

Mattisse, I am the injured party here. I want an apology.

Maury 15:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given your refusal to address any of the concerns mentioned here, and now your latest move to mis-represent both your own and Tom's comments as well, I assume no apology will be forthcoming. Maury 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vendetta

Please stop your vendetta against Starwood Festival, WinterStar Symposium and Association for Consciousness Exploration. The two festivals are longstanding, extremely well-known festivals in the pagan community and of historic interest in that community. Yes, some of the participants that were added are not notable, and yes, they need to be rewritten to be less promotional. However, you seem to be some sort of anti-pagan bigot based on your current actions. Are you? -999 (Talk) 16:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note in your edit summaries that you claim that your prod tags were removed by the authors. However, the articles in question were created by Rosencomet and the prods were removed by Hanuman Das, who took the time to discuss the matter with Rosencomet on Rosencomet's talk page. Your behavior is looking more and more inappropriate to me. People like Nema, Isaac Bonewits and others are long-standing members of the pagan community and published authors as well. You appear to be ignorant of the subject area and indiscriminating in your apparent vendetta. Why not leave it to others more familiar with the matter to determine which authors are non-notable in the community and which are notable? People such as Hanuman Das were starting to discuss this and even prodded some of the less notable articles. Why not use your time more productively? -999 (Talk) 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not my articles, paleface. Save your attitude for the appropriate person. And try talking to the actual author rather than go on a prod and tag rampage! You will also note that WP:V allows the use of personal websites, publisher promotional material and autobiographical material in articles about the subject of such materials. But thanks anyway... -999 (Talk) 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Topic I'm interested in and knowledgable about. What's your excuse? :-) -999 (Talk) 17:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to suggest that some of the articles that you have recently applied {{prod}} to are more in need of editing than they are of deletion. You may want to consider using {{Notability}} if you would like to use boilerplate to express your concern that the subject of an article fails our inclusion standards for lacking in verifiable secondary sources. We certainly have editors, such as User:999 above, who have familiarity with these authors, and could be a good resource for helping determine which articles we should keep and which we should not. Thanks. Jkelly 19:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring you to User:999 as a policy expert, but instead as a local specialist in authors on the occult. It may be that some of them do not meet our inclusion guidelines, but Oberon Zell Ravenheart certainly does. I was suggesting that you could benefit from getting some input from those Wikipedians who are more familiar with the topic. Jkelly 04:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not answering my question and not helping me out.

I guess it's only the "in group" you respond to. Well, I shall be doing no more here as I see that being conscientious gets you nowhere. So, thanks for not responding to my request for help. Shows me what Wikipedia really is. Mattisse(talk) 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't bother to answer this -- not that you would bother too anywhy as I am not on your "important list". I am no longer here. I think if you had bothered to look at my list of contributions you would see that I have worked very hard here for a number of months and really meant to do right. But obviously sincere contributors are the last thing on you mind. Mattisse(talk) 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, assume some assume some good faith please. I apologise for not answering you as quickly as you would have liked. Every now and again we all get wikistressed-out and it's not that I haven't started adressing the whole Starwood Festival fiasco. If you had actually checked out User_talk:Rosencomet you would have noticed that several editors including myself have already challenged him/her. And if you had looked closer at my talk page at User_talk:Netsnipe#User:Rosencomet, I'd had already referred User:TruthbringerToronto to the whole batch of articles to see if he could improve any of them before sending them to AFD and I'd at least have to give him a few days at least. And not to mention that I've got a lot of assignments right now -- so I've only been tackling small stuff over the last 48 hours on short breaks from assignment work. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And whenever you get overly stressed out, take some time out from editing and hang out on the Wikipedia:IRC channels or Wikipedia:Esperanza. Get to know the community around you. And have some fun decorating your user and talk pages. When was the last time you checked your user page? *wink* *wink*. Feel free to message me when you get back. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Karen I second this comment about taking some timeout. Don't be suprised if people react badly to tagging of articles. If you want to tag, be prepared to defend thoses tags. --Salix alba (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was that some sort of complaint was filed agains me on that complaint board because I could not get advice or help.

Tom the Hand (an administer, I believe) had said that, although he agreed with me on Maury with what I was asking Maury to do on his article, that I had not been sufficiently sensitive enough that this person, Maury, was a newbie. Well, it turnss out that this person Tom the Hand was being so sensitive about is an admististor, not a newbie at all. I am the newbie.

The situation is hopeless. I have already changed my name once to not sound female (as I see that females are treated much worse here), then metros232 was kind enough to reveal in the complaint against me that I was female. So I give up. I can't contimue with this name and I can't keep changing. If you look at my contributions, they were serious. I was trying to do the right thing. Never again. If this person, Maury, is an admistrator than there is no hope.

There is no way for me to get help or protection from this gang of admistrators who, frankly, are either very uninformed or on a power trip. I'm not using this name again as I have been exposed as a female. I will probaly not register again as there is a significant disadvantage to registering. My ISP has a roving address so why should I expose myself to this abuse?

If you guys ever wonder why there is significant antipathy toward Wikipedia, this is why. I even feel like vandalizing myself as hard work is only punished. That busines about "being bold" is a hoax. Your should warn people more forcibly that it is harmful here, and that people with good intentions should stay away because there is no protection for them and they will be punished out of proportion, while some priviledged peope, for whatever reason, get away with much worse and go unpunished. If I knew how, I would like to become one of them.

This is a bad place and I am going away. I'm not going to respond to the complaint against me because it is ridiculous and because it won't do any good as the person complaining is an administrator and he is mustering support (however ridiculous but the way you guys can do) for his side. I noticed that there was no real defense of me as no one takes me seriously or even bothers to look in to the allegations.

I don't know what to think about you, as I have supported you in the past. In any case, if you are well meaning, and you are one of the very few administrators (if you are one) that has ever responded to me, I thank you for that. But it is not something that I can count on, as the instance of metros232 (or whatever his name is) demonstrates. Mattisse(talk) 04:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you could possibly have thought I was a newbie? I have 11,000+ edits dating over four and a half years, and something on the order of 1,000 new or completely re-written articles. Some of these articles are the best on their topics in any media, print or online. My article on the 8600 is the only one I even know exists. And yes, I'm an admin, a power I use extremely rarely. You'll note I didn't block you in the midst of your mass PRODing for instance. I'm sorry that you're surprised by all of this, but you could have checked my contributions list at any time.
If you don't want people complaining about you tagging, all you have to do is post your explainations in the talk pages. I have repeatedly asked you to do this, and to date you have failed to do so. In the meantime you've made similar edits to dozens of other pages, again, all of them (save one) without comment. Do you even understand the complaint here? It's not that you tag, its that you tag without explaination and then hit people with PRODs if they complain. You are not the victim here Mattisse, all we're trying to do is stop the drive-by tagging that you're adding to the articles. I really can't think of any way to make this more clear.
And now the gender card. Really, do you think this is helping your case? Maury 13:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip H. Farber AfD

Hi Matisse. I assume you are talking about the comment from User:999? I think the comment in general is acceptable, since the complaint at WP:ANI is directly related to Starwood Festival articles, of which this is one. However I do think his use of the term "vendetta" is unfortunate and ideally wouldn't be there. Its not something I would personally take further however as its relatively minor and calling 999 on it would likely antagonized him and escalate the dispute. My advice? Let this one go as a minor annoyance. I doubt that 999's comment will sway the AfD either way. If it looks like other editors are using that as a basis it might be worth adding your own polite, calm rebuttal, but you're probably better off doing that on the ANI report if you want to do it at all.

Just my 2 cents, Gwernol 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halebidu temples Dineshkannambadi 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mattisse, I like your inputs to the various pages you have been cleaning up. However, please be careful with critically worded newspaper articles that tend to politicise matters beyod reason (at times). I have been to Hassan 2 months back and I did not see any ruins as such. There are some issues like toilets etc but the temples are defnitely not in ruins. on the contrary, they looked beautiful and clean with neat gardens etc. Creating unnecessary fuss over minute details only drives prospective tourists away which make it less justifiable to renovate the place and add infrastructure. Please temper down those lines about temples being in runis. Also, I suggest that you have a seperate section for "concerns" which should not be mixed with history

Dinesh Kannambadi

Warning to Mattisse -- there is a gang out to get you! Please read this

I want to give you a warning about a squad of people actively trying to save what they know are non notable articles by any means. And they have targeted you as one of their methods. They seem willing to do anything or sacrifice anybody.

I read Rosencomet's talk page, which I stumbled upon looking through the edit history of some articles I"ve been coming across.

Hanuman Das to Rosencomet: When you started putting mentions of ACE, SF and WSS into existing articles is what got you noticed. If you hadn't done that, you might have slipped by, but obviously you put something in an article somebody was watching and it made them suspicious of what you were doing.

Hanuman Das then decribes 999 (Talk) as someone who has "been around enough to know the WP policies and maybe bend 'em a little, but he can't save you from a concerted effort to delete anything non-notable."

999 (Talk) to to Atlant about Mattisse: He's now gone and nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. I'll admit its a borderline article, but I think should be kept on principle and to prevent further nominations.

And Salix alba (talk) has edits in many of those articles originated by Rosencomet so he is part of the crew trying to perpetuate the Rosencomet generated Starwood Festival and WinterStar Symposium, run by the Association for Consciousness Exploration protection crew.

Also 999 (Talk) has connections to Maury which I can't locate now but will when I have more time.

Also, check out TomTheHand talk page and the entries made by Maury there.

These are just examples. I found much more.

I'm beginning to get very interested in this! NLOleson 12:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know the only reason I started to look at starwood was to see what all the fuss was about, when it was mentioned here. I had a quicklook at the festival and it seemed definatly to be notable enough having run for 25 years. The request for citation was quite easily verified, and there is third party verification for many of the performers, more could probably be easily found, say take Big Brother and the Holding company as well as being mentioned on the Starwood website, they are refered to here, here, here BB&HC site and thats just the first page of google hits. So a lot of notable names have appeared there. Likewise Apple Search seems clearly notable. Both seem cases where the tagging were a bit overzellious.
I've had no contact with 999, Rosencomet, Hanuman Das, Maury or TomTheHand before. Why my interest in this page, I spoke up to defend Mattisse and grandchilden in a recient sockpuppet incident, and still had it on my watch list. So can we have a little less of the conspiracy theory please. p.s. sorry about gender disclosure. --Salix alba (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News paper articlesDineshkannambadi 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed any material you have put in there. I merely suggested to you to be careful not to get carried away by the media. I dont know how familiar you are with temples and monuments in India but news paper articles tend to overplay it when they dont need to or just remain oblivious to issues when they should be screaming from roof tops. Very often this is the case with monuments in countries where there are thousands to catch up with like in India. I travel a lot in south India and I believe I have a feel for things like this. All I am saying is dont believe everything you read in the papers. Belur and Halebidu have been proposed by the state and central govt to be nominated as a UNESCO world heritage site.

Dinesh Kannambadi

A barnstar for you

A Barnstar!
Resilient Barnstar
Awarded to Mattisse for becoming a better editor, even thought the advice was offered in the midst of a dispute. Maury 12:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar!

You have been incredibly supportive and helpful and constructive. I notice that you are up for admin. Can anyone comment there, or is it only for other admins to do so? Mattisse(talk) 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I notice the Admin Incident filed against me has vanished. Where do such things go when they disappear and was there an outcome? Mattisse(talk) 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably archived. WP:ANI isn't a tribunal, it's merely a noticeboard where incidents are reported and administrator try to work out a consensus on how to best handle incidents. The Arbitration Committee is the only group on Wikipedia whose review of complaints is final. As for my RFA, I'm still writing it. I don't think there's anything against you voicing your opinion there, but I'm not sure if they really count the votes of non-admins there. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your earlier question: from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship: Who may vote: Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote, except for the candidate.. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  21:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are you fixing footnote doubling?

That is happening with all my articles, every time I edit them. Is there a way I could fix it myself? I haven't a clue how. Mattisse(talk) 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a name attribute to the ref tag seems to have sort of fixed the one I did; however, the ref is still "double" if you look closely; it has two links next to it pointing to the references above. I have absolutely no idea what's causing it to double, and it looks just fine in preview and on diff pages. Something very odd is going on for sure. Geoffrey Spear 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just found this: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Solution to problems with footnotes and references Geoffrey Spear 15:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New namespace for unencyclopaedic category answer

Please refrain from calling other people's work as junk as it takes time to write articles and also to not discourage the thousands of IP users that help in creating articles. Please assume good faith in what they add to the encyclopedia, they try their best and try to add stuff that will be useful. Lincher 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green map 'needs citations' flag

And what, praytell, needs citation exactly? From an outside source no less, since links to GMS seem no have no value to you. The article makes no outrageous claims regarding efficacy or what have you, but instead it simply describes the framework. The boilerplate stamp is therefore rather insulting. The only things which I could see one perhaps reasonably objecting to are the uncited reference for work on a third version of the icons, which is not widely known, or trademark preference. I flirted with the idea of referencing the v3 project website however, it is not intended for public consumption. Likewise, trademark matters are all discussed on private pages or via personal correspondence. Backing up your judgements with comments on discussion pages would be appreciated. --belg4mit

Belg4mit, according to WP:V, every article in Wikipedia should cite "credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Green Map System home page is decidedly not a third-party source. TomTheHand 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt reply, but this really doesn't answer my question... only reiterates the WP dogma (which IME stifles user contribution by increasing the barriers to entry [activation energy]). With such a small entity there has been very little written about them in depth, which I believe is why someone created the original article with copy & paste from the GMS website in the first place. While I created the Cambridge Green Map, and have therefore entered into a licensing agreement with GMS, I am in no way beholden; witness insistence on non-copy like text. I have dug up references regarding trademark/greenwash however Wikipedia:Cite_sources seems to make no provision for citing personal communication or list traffic. --Belg4mit 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal communication and list traffic are not reliable sources. TomTheHand 17:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This particular list traffic would seem to be, when viewed within context i.e; it is a version of the statement (indeed the original, from the horse's mouth) included in the article. Similarly, see Self-published sources in articles about themselves at your own reference. Again though, you continue to reiterate dogma (without actually checking it's applicability) and not give specific examples. --Belg4mit 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Hello,

It appears that you are operating a number of sockpuppet accounts, including the following:

These have been used for vote-stacking on at least one occasion, and have also been employed to strengthen the apparent support for your side in debates (e.g. in arguing with 999).

You've been warned about this behavior before, and were at one point blocked briefly; you are now blocked for a slightly longer period of time. Sockpuppetry is a flagrant abuse of your editing privileges. When your block expires, do not continue to use sockpuppets, or you will face long-term penalties. Regards — Dan | talk 06:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&oldid=73361519"