User talk:Mattisse: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 116: Line 116:
:::::It seems that {{user|Charles Rodriguez}} is a sock. Oh dear Mattisse I would have hopped you would have learnt by now that sockpuppets is not the way to go.--[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::It seems that {{user|Charles Rodriguez}} is a sock. Oh dear Mattisse I would have hopped you would have learnt by now that sockpuppets is not the way to go.--[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::We really didn't need the checkuser to confirm as the account uses the same unique language and words as Mattisse, a style that only she uses. It's disheartening because many of us were hoping Mattisse would change her spots and pull through. Mattisse, if you are reading this, please remember that you don't need this kind of negative attention. If you come clean and apologize, I would be happy to support your return. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::::::We really didn't need the checkuser to confirm as the account uses the same unique language and words as Mattisse, a style that only she uses. It's disheartening because many of us were hoping Mattisse would change her spots and pull through. Mattisse, if you are reading this, please remember that you don't need this kind of negative attention. If you come clean and apologize, I would be happy to support your return. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

:::::::: well that's just dandy of you, V .. wanna put me through '''anohter two years of this''' while I AGF my little pollyanna ass into wiki-oblivion? this is the third time she's done this socking .. that we know about ... i'm glad you're so happy to welcome her return ... in the meantime, i work my arse off for wiki, and had no damn clue i was working against mattisee's grudges. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:34, 1 March 2010


Wikipedia:ARS/Tagged

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 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
If you post on my talk page I will answer it here. Please keep any posts short and concise. And please do not carry on conversations with other editors on this page. Any such conversations will be removed. Thanks!
Anyone who has problems with my editing is encouraged to post at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts.
Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Plan

I will be blocked for quoting my plan? How can that be? I do not understand —mattisse (Talk) 23:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think I will file a Clarification request. I am really taken aback that I can be blocked for quoting parts of my plan. Therefore, there is no way to enable the plan to be followed. That leaves me in limbo, since I cannot tolerate the abuse and punitiveness that has resulted from the plan as currently in action. I simply will not edit articles or contribute to the encyclopedia since the result is punishment. I prevented some punishment by no longer reviewing FACs and GANs. Since Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 I have done no GANs, thank god. I am one of the reviews that has been driven off, and to think I used to do several reviews a week! There is really nothing for me to do here at Wikipedia anymore. I refuse to copy edit because of the ownership issue. So my leaving will be no loss. —mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will file a Clarification request. There is something wrong if I can be threatened with a block for quoting parts of my plan, since it is clear my mentors/advisers are not familiar with it. How do you suggest I enable them to become familiar with it so that they will not violate the provisions if I am not allowed to bring relevant parts of it to their attention? Since that is the case, and I will be blocked if I do, I do not see any other alternative that to go back to Arbitration and seek clarification if the provisions of the plan are to be followed, or whether the mentors/advisers can make up there own provisions, now that I am helpless and under their control. Have you another idea? —mattisse (Talk) 01:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, to clarify, you will block me if I request my mentors/advisers to follow my plan?[1]mattisse (Talk) 23:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that you have "dissolved" your plan, yet are also endeavouring to use it to make a point, and blame your failings on other editors. When you are blocked for provocative comments against another editor (which you have long known is contrary to your plan), you call it a block "without a warning" (you've been warned time and time again). When you are warned that disruptive behaviour may lead to a block, you don't refer to it as a warning, but a "threat". You wilfulling ignoring the fact you are under conduct probation (which goes beyond your plan), talk about advisors "applying" your plan, which is contrary to its nature, and generally twist the comments and actions of other editors in order to support your self-identification as an innocent victim. It is very sad. I hope you can find a way out of the hole you have dug for yourself.
  • As you appear to have no confidence in your advisors, I am unable to give you any further advice at this time. SilkTork has withdrawn his offer of mentorship. If I see no sign in the next 24 hours that you are able to accept rather than deflect your failings, I may also withdraw my offer of mentorship permanently. Wikipedia does not revolve around you. Regards. Geometry guy 08:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, it's up to you what you want to do next. You can go back to arb-com for a clarification, continue with the plan with the mentors you have in the way they implement mentorship, or walk away from wikipedia. What you're doing instead is venting publicly. In my opinion, there really is not much point in that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 13:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I may suggest another alternative, Mattisse has indicated that she has ended the plan and dismissed her advisors. Fine. I suggest that the advisors concur in this and notify ArbCom. I note that the ArbCom decision gives Mattisse the freedom to choose advisors, presumably she could unchoose them or choose others, if she wishes. In the meantime, she is on conduct probation for another 10 months, which provides admins ample means of dealing with any questionable conduct. What is difficult about that? I should add that I urge Mattisse to be cautious, sanctions under conduct probation may be more harsh and more impersonal than she has known to date. But it's a free wiki; give her what she wants.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise against abandoning the plan. This would require going back to arbcom, which will in itself be a painful and stressful process, I'd much rather avoid that. --Salix (talk): 19:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will continue with the plan. If any of the advisers/mentors wish to leave, of course they may. I am sorry and apologize for causing all this disturbance. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham87

Hi Mattisse. Great that you've agreed to be a part of the Graham87 interview! I've set up a page at User:RegentsPark/Graham87Interview but not yet asked Graham87 to respond to the question there (I was hoping you would agree to co-interview him). When you get the chance, take a look and add questions. I'd like to go to Graham87 after we have a few questions in place. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myitsone Dam

Mattisse, Thanks for your many constructive edits on Myitsone Dam which is now advanced to Prep area 2, thanks to you. I hadn't looked at the article for several days and have been working on Dams in Burma and Weigyi Dam, neither of which are ready for the main space. If you are interested, you are welcome to work on those articles in my user spaces. I bit off more than I can chew with these Burmese Dams. I should be back in my usual territory, Protected areas of Tamil Nadu. -Marcus334 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 23:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I had no idea. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to worry about. We just try to ensure that everybody is aware of the special circumstances. --TS 23:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more appropriate tag to put near an inline cite that goes to a webpage where a story has been moved or pulled would be something akin to dead link, not failed verify. It was a simple matter to verify after going to archive.org. ---mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link is misleading, as the link checker will frequently show such a link as good. As far as I know there is no tag for "moved or pulled" as you suggest. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Arthur Stayner

Updated DYK query On February 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Stayner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

For running multiple accounts per a checkuser, and attempting to continue to attack another user, I have indefinitely blocked this account. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Is there no doubt about this? Could you not be mistaken? --Malleus Fatuorum 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've had several people look at this, persuant to other issues, and they've signed off on it. SirFozzie (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any details of this? I've looked in a few places and could not see reference. What was the puppet account? --Salix (talk): 08:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts. One minute, I'll tag them. SirFozzie (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Charles Rodriguez (talk · contribs) is a sock. Oh dear Mattisse I would have hopped you would have learnt by now that sockpuppets is not the way to go.--Salix (talk): 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We really didn't need the checkuser to confirm as the account uses the same unique language and words as Mattisse, a style that only she uses. It's disheartening because many of us were hoping Mattisse would change her spots and pull through. Mattisse, if you are reading this, please remember that you don't need this kind of negative attention. If you come clean and apologize, I would be happy to support your return. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well that's just dandy of you, V .. wanna put me through anohter two years of this while I AGF my little pollyanna ass into wiki-oblivion? this is the third time she's done this socking .. that we know about ... i'm glad you're so happy to welcome her return ... in the meantime, i work my arse off for wiki, and had no damn clue i was working against mattisee's grudges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]