User talk:Mattisse/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_22) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_24)

Hi

We had a couple reverts between us, but I think I found the reason for our misunderstanding: there is an unsourced sentence in Primate which suggests that they "may" date back 86mya. I din't initially notice its lack of a ref, but just took it at face value when comparing the numbers cited in each article. This was the cause of my confusion so I added a fact tag to that and now completely accept your revions at Human Evolution. Thanks, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, as 85 million didn't make sense. The article is woefully under referenced. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

City of London School

I've been doing a peer review for City of London School and after I wrap it up today, it probably wouldn't hurt for them to get a little extra advice, they intend to nom for GA. If you can. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Johns River

I see that you may be interested in the topic, or at least two images in the article. I just expanded it considerably and it's at GAN and PR right now. Are you interested in doing the GA or peer review? I appreciate all comments on the content and suggestions to improve it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Message received and replied to:-) R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Areas For Reform: Redlinking Wikipedians

Hi Matisse, I very much like dave souza's idea to encourage red linking at Areas For Reform. I've tentatively created a Wikipedia category Redlinking Wikipedians‎ (as a sub-cat of Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy) and an associated user box. Is this idea useful?

Feel free to edit the category and/or userbox ... or to suggest deletion.

With good wishes, Esowteric+Talk 12:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

I like to like the people I write about. His involvement in Stalin's purges makes that very difficult indeed. Just so much blood. At least Speer never got his hands dirty. Still, I'll keep moving forward on the article. I don't know how long it will take me to finish. A while, probably, it is easy enough to write biography, but the discussions of his premiership will take more sources and more time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of him visiting China, where Mao invited him to swim in a pool. Fat and unfit, Khrushchev thrashed about in the shallow end with a floating device, while Mao elegantly dove in and swam several laps using a variety of strokes—all the while lecturing Khrushchev on communist doctrine. There are so many scenes like that, it becomes unreal. My main beef with the book is that all I can say is, "How could this possibly have happened?" Meeting with world leaders that end up crass shouting matches and brute ego plays. It is interesting to contemplate a person who can figure out how to build a motorcycle all on his own as a kid, but is almost totally uneducated, learning on the job. making fantastic agriculture errors, like declaring American corn was the way to go for all of the Soviet Union. Like much of Russian history, it is incomprehensible how all of this could have occurred. He reminds me of some very severe criminals I have known. Repulsive, yet charming and fascinating. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of him on his American tour, visiting his friend Gornt in Iowa, and enjoying his trip to IBM more for the self service cafeteria than for the machines. Yet nearly alienating Eisenhower at Camp David, and a year later, destroying the Paris Conference before returning to New York, shoe in hand. Very primitive emotions, yet in his way extremely intelligent.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He lived in horrible filth in the industrial/mining job. The poverty described was unbelievable (although I have read such before). Then feeling "insecure" as the book repeatedly says, through wits, wiles and hard work, he gets to the top and enjoys it. An animal cunning and a natural understanding of people. He talked easily to others, "jabbered" and joked. I think he lived in the moment, relishing enjoyment, with little personal reflection. So he felt bad when the brutality hit him viscerally in the face, as when confronted with the reality a broken old friend, but the rest of the time it was pushed to the side by his immersion in work and political maneuvering that demanded full attention. Just scraw "arrest" across the top of a paper. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Disinfoboxman

I know it's frustrating and a sore spot for you, but comments like this won't help matters. I'd advise you to stay well away from any discussions related to Geogre/Giano/Bishonen for the time being. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I didn't think anyone would notice. Sorry. Won't do it again. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just looking out for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested as to how I stumbled upon that exchange, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/A. E. J. Collins/archive1. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I've remove the comment at the top of the FAR page saying that people should only have one FAR at a time, since the de facto operating consensus was that multiple ones were allowed. Just in case you were thinking of nominating another (or three or four) while Greeks was still open, as you raised concerns about people being too worried/huilty about keeping old FARs. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The process does go excruciatingly slow. I nominated another. Hope my nom is OK. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. Nishkid, Cirt and myself all have 4+ up there YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem personally, no YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dweller mooted automatic FARing YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ROFL and Orchids

Hi, Mattisse. ROFL = "roll on floor laughing" and ROFLMAO = "roll on floor laughing my ... off". Looks like you need to find a dictionary of internet slang, for exmaple this one.

I have 4 GA reviews in progress, and real life (yes, I have one!) is hectic at present, so I may not be able to contribute much to Fertilisation of Orchids in the next week or so - sorry. --Philcha (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I tried some things and it works. Spits out the information. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict on the article!> Thought someone was laughing at Orchids! Sorry that focus has been lost a bit in trying to expand the aspects of relationship to other projects and Darwin's life at the time, will have a go a tightening things up. Maybe worth pulling it from FAC until there's been more of a chance to resolve these issues and get feedback, possibly reconsidering the article name? Don't know how to do that, myself, do I just make an announcement on the FAC page? . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be withdrawn. I tried to fix the specific points the opposer brought up. And I plan to go through it again today. It would be good to get more feedback. I asked Philcha for an opinion, but he is too busy right now. If you do want to withdraw it, you can just post on the FAC page that you want to do so. Also, you can notify User:SandyGeorgia. It will withdrawn upon request. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I'll return to it later today with a particular aim of tightening the focus. . . dave souza, talk 12:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

<ri> At FAC, Philcha has questioned the paragraph "Darwin began to include women who were botany enthusiasts in his correspondence. As a popular and acceptable activity, botany had been taken up by many middle class ladies. On the recommendation of John Lindley, Darwin wrote to Lady Dorothy Nevill who responded generously by sending numerous exotic orchids, and requested a signed photograph of him to hang up in her sitting room next to portraits of her notable friends including Hooker." My feeling is that the general issue is valid, the last bit "and requested a signed photograph of him to hang up in her sitting room next to portraits of her notable friends including Hooker" is amusing and biographically of interest, but a bit offtopic and could be deleted. What think you? . dave souza, talk 16:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the lede you talk of the "vogue at the time for growing exotic orchids." You also say his field work "developed into enjoyable and challenging experiments, aided by his family, village friends and a widening circle of correspondents across Britain and worldwide." To me the Lady Dorothy Nevill material is an example of these statements. Just the sort of vogue upper crust Victorian ladies would enjoy, plus it shows the breath of those who contributed. This collaboration of Darwin with so many is one of his charms. That is the way I took it. I don't see it as a sop thrown to feminists. It has never been denied there were educated Victorian ladies. Plus I do disagree with some of his other nitpicks, perhaps because I have looked at the references you supply. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will leave the photo bit in for now. Please don't hesitate to make it clear where you think that I'm going too far in conceding changes to meet nitpicks. Any such advice is greatly welcomed. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Having had some discussion with Philcha on my talk page, I've tried trimming down the family detail and some other aspects in my sandbox.[1] I'd appreciate it if you could have a look, some of it's through gritted teeth but I'm inclined to implement these changes, including losing the bit about Lady Nevill asking for Darwin's photo! If you think other bits should be deleted, please say. Thanks for all your help, dave souza, talk 22:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not like the changes. It takes all the charm and drama out of the article. I guess this article is supposed to be dry and encyclopedia, but for me it is too painful to see the changes. The best I can do is not look at the article, as what I see I do not like. Maybe it is better to have the article fail. In fact, I may withdraw my support the way things are going. Put the article out of its misery. Sorry that I am feeling so emotion, but I did very much like the original article. Is getting an FA woth it? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that by posting rather late at night I've given the wrong impression, I was asking your opinion before going further, and will not make the changes. Individual aspects can be discussed, but as you say it's important to try to keep the qualities of the original. I'll try looking back to the version where you gave your support, and will compare it to the current version to try to find exactly where quality is being lost. The sandbox proposals were actually pretty minor, but as you say these things can chip away at the original quality of writing. Will think it over for a while now. . dave souza, talk 10:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I was wasting my time. I thought it was quite a nice article, and with a bit of tidying up and clarification on a coule of points I'd have been prepared to support it. But if it's liable to be overwritten from an editor's sandbox then it can hardly be considered stable. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Have responded in detail on your talk page, your changes seemed to me to be improvements and would not be discarded even if the sandbox proposals were implemented. . dave souza, talk 10:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, if you dislike the direction the FA review is taking you should speak out there, explaining in detail why you think it's going wrong. You too, Malleus. If you think the problems you find are caused by my comments, say which and why. Sure, I'll argue my case, but I'll play fair - I know I'm not infallible. --Philcha (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PS re Lady Dorothy Nevill, I'd be inclined to put the item about the signed photo in the bio article Charles Darwin, where the idea of his being a "pop star" would be amusing. In Fertilisation of Orchids I'd consider changing "His requests to the wealthy enthusiasts who had taken up the fashionable pursuit of growing rare orchids brought large numbers of specimens" to e.g. "He obtained many specimens from wealthy enthusiasts who had taken up the fashionable pursuit of growing rare orchids  – including Lady Dorothy Nevill and other ladies of high-status, for whom this was one of the few hobbies considered respectable" as a sly dig at Victorian restrictions on women." I'm all for including a little humour and colour into science related articles, provided it does not distract from the science. --Philcha (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've checked out User_talk:Dave_souza#Strongly_recommend_withdrawal_Orchids_from_FAC. One of the hard things you'll have to learn is how to handle disagreements with friends, without getting upset about it. For example Malleus and I disagreed strongly about Manchester Mark 1, I failed it as GA but Malleus won the rematch - but we still have plenty of laughs, and I think we agree on the majority of WP-related subjects (such as the c*v*l*t* p*l*c*).

Please come back to the FAC - given what I've seen, you'll probably disagree strongly - but I won't complain, I'll be glad to see you stand up for what you believe in a firm, level-headed way. --Philcha (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I don't want to fall out with anyone, but thinking it over, the half sentence on Lady Nevill says a lot about the circles Darwin was getting his plants from, and is worth keeping. Also, am unhappy with moving the "Botany as recreation" heading, though I appreciate the intention. Have tried looking over the version as of 10 July and the current version, and the first thing that struck me is that the background section is now much more clumsy, if also much more informative. As an experiment, not to be just pasted over anyone else's improvements, I've tried reintegrating it with the "Insect fertilisation of plants" section, and restoring the Downe house / Orchis Bank connection which had been lost by digressing into Sprengel.[2] That seems to me to restore a bit of the old quality, comments welcome. Will review other sections when time permits. . dave souza, talk 12:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

To Philcha, I have been in communication with Dave all along. Remember, I was in arbitration in large part because I went into too much detail in an FAC page, even though my complaints were correct. I am certainly unwilling to do the same here and have the FAC people complain. I have made my point of view known.

Maybe I am overly involved with the article, having put so much work into it and read the primary sources. As I have communicated to Dave, I have had deep reservations about many of the changes proposed all along. They remove the flavor and spirit of the work. I no longer have the ability to even try to follow the lengthening list of proposed changes. I think the article is deteriorating, losing it's focus and becoming dry, with too much distracting somewhat irrelevant detail introduced. I disagreed the first time the article went into the sandbox, but I tried to go along with the program. This time it is too much. I am sorry. This process has become too confusing and chaotic. It is detrimental to the article. It is unfair to editors who are in good faith copy editing the article as is. I do not have the energy to argue every little point proposed. I think the article should be withdrawn from FAC. What are other editors to think when an article proposal is in a sandbox for the second time at this late date in its course through FAC. I is not fair to those who entered a good faith support before these massive changes were made.

I remember the incident with Malleus. I did not want Dave to have to go through a similar experience. Although Malleus may have won at the "rematch" it took its toll. I feel like I am now having a similar experience to Malleus and I am having the same frustrated reaction he did. As I remember, he withdrew and you consequently failed the article. My working relationship with Dave has been wonderful and accommodating. However, this experience has become bad and I prefer to bow out for my own mental health, as Malleus did in the incident you describe.

Remember, those of us who supported the article supported it as it was then, not necessarily as it is now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your account of the difference of opinion that Philcha and I had over the Manchester Mark I's GA doesn't quite tally with my own recollection Mattisse. I didn't "withdraw", I simply refused to make some of the changes suggested, and encouraged him to fail the article so that I could take it to GAR, for other opinions. At no point did Philcha and I fall out over the review, we simply disagreed, and I dare say we still disagree over exactly the same points. FAC is different though, in that there are always other opinions, and sometimes they conflict. The trick is to bend with them as far as is reasonable, like a tree in the wind, not to break under a light summer breeze. It's obvious to me that a lot of good work's been done on this article, and that it's very close to meeting the FA criteria. Seems a shame to withdraw at this late stage when just one final push is needed. If you object to some of the changes thast Philcha or anyone else has proposed (I haven't made up my mind yet), then the prope thing to do is to argue your corner, as I did at that GAR. If you're right, then it will be obvious to at least most people. I would encourage you to strike your opposition and to fight for what you believe the article should be. It's quite possible to do that without any ill will or rancour; even though I haven't always agreed with him I have the greatest respect for the work Philcha does, and the fact that the bastard failed one of my GAs didn't alter that one little bit. :-) Walking away when things get tough isn't always the answer. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean you did "withdraw" in a formal sense. I meant that you stopped complying with his requests, in effect withdrawing, knowing it meant the article would fail GA. That is the choice Dave has here with Orchids. Have you looked at the FAC page and the long, and lengthening lists of requests? I have presented my case to Dave by posts and emails. As you know, I cannot comment, as in "presenting my case" on FAC pages, as my doing so in the Major depressive disorder is one of the main reasons I ended up in arbitration. So I cannot "argue" as you did, nor "fight for what [I] believe the article should be." You are allowed latitude; I am not. My only option, per My Plan, is to withdraw. I have put too much into the article[3] It is painful to see the beauty and charm of the article destroyed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus has stated the case perfectly, as usual. If your plan winds up making you a doormat, it's failed, because you will become angry and depressed - I know I would if I tried to be a doormat - and then either you will withdraw from WP or you will explode. Your "opponent" (me) in this case is also your friend and one of your mentors, so if you do go too far I won't make a huge fuss - I'd just leave a message on your Talk page, e.g. "you might want to rephrase that". What better situation to practise the skills you need to develop? C'mon, let's have fun - I just realised that's the point: treat it as a word game, not as life or death. --Philcha (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look through last night, and I think it's a great little article, so why don't we all try and work together to see it home? I haven't fully formed my opinion on the article yet, or some of the proposed changes, but when I do I won't be shy about presenting my opinion. This growing series on Darwin is important addition to the encyclopedia, and one worth a little bit of effort to get right. It's perfectly possible to disagree with another editor, even strongly, without that developing into rancour so long as the focus is maintained on the article, not the editor; things start to get nasty when the comments become personal. The purpose of your plan was to help you to spot and deal with situations which were becoming stressful to you, and do avoid the descent into personal remarks. If you've reached the point where you feel unable to continue the discussion at FAC without that risk, then of course it is better that you take no further part. Best of all though would be to argue your case clearly and rationally and, if you're right, win Philcha round. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus, it might be a good idea to outline your ideas a.s.a.p. - otherwise Dave may feel he's being pulled around too much. Real life issues made me enter the discussion a week later than I hoped, and look what happened :-/ --Philcha

I quite like the article largely as it is. As I said last night, to me it just needs a bit of tidying up here and there, so I've no intention of making any sweeping demands of Dave. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

I have no desire in the FAC discussion to "treat it as a word game", as Philcha suggests above. Unfortunately, there is no "right". Tenacity is what "wins". I have continued to copy edit the article through out to try to make the best of things for myself and to clarify the language.

I have expressed myself already regarding what I considered the charm and the beauty of the article on the FAC page. The richness of the imagery in conveying Darwin's thinking and writing processes and the life around him that contributed to the work are the very things being purged from the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Sorry I've been out most of today, my feeling is that both Mattisse and Philcha are right: the concerns about the imagery are very important, and all of the relevant text has been left in place, but as I suggested in my last draft proposal the insertion of other material in between the move to Down House and the description of Orchis Bank weakened the force of that section. Which is why I've suggested restoring the original order, without deleting any of the text in that section. In addition there could be merit in trimming the recently inserted "Background" about the earlier life of Darwin, and merging it into the insect fertilisation section. In other sections more information has been added clarifying aspects of the imagery, I don't think it looks too bad but will gladly discuss any improvements. What was the "Influence" section has been greatly expanded and reorganised, and in my opinion Philcha has been very right to look for more information and clarification both of the scientific implications of the work and of its influence. The Asa Gray quote wasn't in the original, so there should not be a problem with trimming or deleting it. The greenhouses section wasn't in the original: it adds more about Darwin's home life, but could be transferred to a Darwin biography page and trimmed a bit without losing much. I appreciate that it's very easy for changes to blunt or lose the quality of language, and there's a tension between improving the coverage of the article and maintaining its freshness. Any guidance you can give on this tricky balance is very much appreciated. p.s. we did remove "larks abound there" etc. from the Down House description, it did seem a bit off topic. dave souza, talk 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just one outstanding issue from my point of view Dave; which version ought I to be looking at? I really do want to make my mind up after having read through the version that's at FAC, whichever one that's going to be. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to the inclusion of more information of the scientific implications/influence etc. of his work. I do think that the information about his environment and the way a hobby expanded into a major contribution to his theory of evolution shows how science evolves from everyday experience and not just a great mind contemplating in a room. This process is particularly integrated in Darwin's descriptions. I also think the article could be more specific in explaining his thinking in a way the general reader can understand. This book contained crucial and fundamental findings. As far as what you are proposing above, I have not been able to keep up with all the changes, so I don't know at this point what is in the article.—Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've avoided making any changes lately, and don't want to do anything drastic without agreement here. The proposals I'm making are purely illustrations, and any edits to the main article will be done in place to keep any useful changes, not pasted in from my rough draft. This idea involves two changes: the less important one involves shrinking the pre-orchids biography and integrating it into the "insect fertilisation" section, the more useful possibility, in my opinion, moves the "orchis bank" information back into a paragraph with the move to Down House, as it was originally, and makes the Sprengel information into a separate paragraph. I think that makes a more vivid picture of the family life at Downe, but will leave it unless you agree. Something Philcha suggested, which seems worthwhile to me, is to either trim and integrate Asa Gray's quote in the Reception section, or delete it altogether. The Thompson source will allow slight expansion of the influence on biology, as has been requested at FAC, so that's something I've still to tackle. Hope that change is OK with everyone. So, won't do any more tonight, will see what comments anyone has on these ideas. Thanks for your patience. . . dave souza, talk 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made some improvements (in my opinion) in the sections you are thinking of moving and changing, which I hope you will consider and not just overwrite, as I removed redundant wording, added wikilinks etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've considered them, they look good to me and won't just be overwritten. The possible change to integrate the "background" biography into the "insect fertilisation" section is aimed at meeting your concern about the writing quality, if you don't like it then I'm glad to leave it alone: the reuniting of the move to Downe with Orchis Bank is purely a move of paragraphs, and your latest wording would be kept. That's the one I think more significant for writing quality, again if you'd rather leave it as it is, no problem. . . dave souza, talk 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fertilisation of Orchids proposals

Further to the discussion from #ROFL and Orchids which was getting rather long: if you think it's an improvement, we can reorganise the "insect fertilisation" section, which at present has three paragraphs, the second starting with the move to Downe, the third starting with Orchis Bank, to have four paragraphs (proposal for illustration purposes, same words but block of text moved) so that the second paragraph is about the move to Downe and Orchis Bank, and the third is about Sprengel. Either looks ok to me, the revised version as proposed is a bit more like the version you supported but has more info on Sprengel. If you think the proposal improves the quality of writing, we'll make the change. If not, it'll be left as it is. . dave souza, talk 10:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For information, I've implemented the proposed change to the Influence section, briefly summarising Gray's statement rather than making it a blockquote. Will introduce some more into that section using Thompson as a source. . dave souza, talk 10:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Having done that, I've tweaked the lead to reflect that information and give more impact to the influence of the book. . dave souza, talk 14:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are improving it by adding concrete detail. It is hard for me to evaluate it now, piecemeal. I will just have to wait and see how it looks when done. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's me done now. Hope you find it acceptable, any comments or suggestions will be most welcome. . . dave souza, talk 22:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll look through it. To think that I supported it originally to get "some action" going on the nomination that seemed stalled! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I appreciate what you've done for the article and also feel myself that it's pretty difficult to see the article with fresh eyes after doing a lot of editing on it. Re. your request, this was an example of trying to improve related pages – still a lot to do, as the example in that article of the moth and orchid could do with a transplant from the Fertilisation of Orchids sections relating to that subject. It's never-ending! Thanks again, . dave souza, talk 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always admired Darwin but much more so now. The article dramatically illustrates the process through which his theory was developed. I think it is a wonderful article and was improved through the suggestions at FAC. You were right to be open-minded about the suggestions! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly took heed of your suggestions as well! Your advice on quality gave a good focus, and is very much welcomed. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 11:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted comments

I think this recent posting of yours is very unwise Mattisse;[4] It appears that you are bearing a grudge, but more importantly to be excusing the poor behaviour of one editor because of the poor behaviour of another. Even worse, it looks like you believe that Tony1 in some way deserves to be treated in the way he has complained of, because of his treatment of you, This is not good, and I seriously hope that you do not intend to pursue this any further. You have to let bygones by bygones, not be contunuially on the lookout for ways to get your own back --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Mattisse, I submitted an article for DYK today (Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death). I haven't ever done this before; could you explain how the process works from now on? Are there any talk pages I have to watch? Regards, --JN466 19:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You should check on your nomination frequently and see if there are any problems. If there is a problem, if the hook is too long or is not referenced in the article etc., a reviewer will comment below your nomination so that you can address the complaint and fix it. Sometimes the reviewer will contact you, but not always, so it is best to keep checking it until you know a reviewer has accepted it. Only in extreme cases, such as a copyvio, would a DYK not ultimately be passed. Good luck! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I was confused, because there seemed to be a dozen pages associated with the process, but that sounds straightforward enough. Regards, --JN466 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you have time, I'd be grateful if you could give the article a read-through and let me have your feedback. Mainstream US media ignored the documentary completely, while it was high-profile in Europe. So the available sources are a little skewed, and I am concerned the US gov't view may be underrepresented. For example, the only source giving an English version of Schwartz's statement was http://www.wsws.org – not a source I wanted to quote – so I ended up citing Der Spiegel, which carried it in German translation ... JN466 00:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That article is not my cup of tea. Only with great reluctance do I get involved in controversial articles and only under very limited circumstances. Sorry! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Probably very wise ... and a good evening to you. JN466 23:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The alt account policy debate

Mattisse, really good statement there. I disagree strongly with Anderson's rebuttal of it. "Teacher" indeed—pffff. Tony (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate election in California, 1950

Could I get you to hold your nose and at least take a look at this? Tony1 is saying it needs a copyediting, and I think it's garbage and he is showing why he's on editing restriction. The article's gone through GA and PR, still to keep the peace ... I got rid of "Republican officials", by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I tried but couldn't get much past the introduction. My brain just isn't up to it. It takes someone who is interested in the subject matter. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Tony, as I've said at the article's FAC. What "editing restrictions" is he on anyway? That's news to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't seen this? OK, I'm taking seriously the copyedit thing. However, Mattisse is my usual go to, er, gal (forgive me) on this. Any suggestions for a candidate to copyedit? Or would you be willing to take a shot at it, Malleus? Don't forget, I supported your RFA! :)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm aware of the mass date delinking scandal, I just thought that your comment was in some way relevant to FAC participation, which I now see that it isn't. My RfA (both of them) is a bad memory that I'd prefer to forget, so I have no more loyalty to my supporters than I bear grudges against the bastards that opposed me. But if you're prepared to make the article less parochial by avoiding silly words like "grubernatorial" then I'm prepared to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant your "joke" RFA. I would not presume to condition RfA votes in such a manner, Malleus. Yes, I'd be grateful for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about that. Looking through some of those old archives gives me a clear sense of the hatred and blood-lust that some editors have for me. Hopefully though they'll all spontaneously ignite one day soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that and Majorly's "CreditCrunch" RfA's leave me in stitches, and if they didn't have an echo of "real life" they wouldn't be funny. I greatly appreciate your giving me a hand. This is the first individual election article to make it this far, and I'm determined to see it through. I didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, that I was seeking a favor in exchange for my !vote. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I voted in either of your real RfA's.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks very good. I'll probably do a touchup for technical stuff, but I think I'll notify the opposers to reconsider once that's done. Let me know when you are done working it over. Thanks! Did you get my email?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Got the email and don't know what to make of it. One thing is clear from your article: Nixon was really into to "tactics". In fact, Douglas sounds a little "flaky". I'm pretty much done. Hope the quotes are reduced enough to satisfy. I tried to leave in the ones that gave a flavor of the rhetoric. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How could they not know those things about Chotiner? After ten years' association with the man. As for Douglas, probably. Or more of a feeling that she was invincible, her NY Times obit said that the 1950 loss was the first major setback in her entire life. Before that, as the final quote makes clear, things just came easy to her. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They were very concrete in their thinking. The fact they would need to write those things down indicates that, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

True. I've gone through it and made a few minor changes. Sorry, I just like "iconic" vehicle! They have it displayed (surely a replica) at the Nixon Museum. Incidentally, this article has no heroes. Everyone winds up looking bad. Except maybe the minor candidates ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if "iconic" passes the POV test, it's OK with me. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's to contrast to Douglas's "Helencopter". Both had vehicles that got a lot of comment in the spring of 1950.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But "iconic" is something like the Statue of Liberty. I don't think the "Helencopter" is iconic. I have never heard of it before. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Good point. Notable? Noteworthy? What's a good word for this?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I just put "campaign vehicle" almost anything is a bit peacocky.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement‎

Since my FAC received few reviews, I wanted to seek three people to look over the article and give a general input. I'm not looking for grammar. I want to see how the page reads as a whole and the rest. In general, I want to get a sense of the positives and the negatives. If you want to make any changes, feel free. I am asking you because you have a good sense when it comes to a wide range of page types, so you would be able to see how this page (which is a rather unique page) would fit in. If you do not want to, you do not have to. If you only want to say a little, you can, or if you want to say a lot, you can. This is an informal request and you can make any comments on the talk page if you would like. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Chotiner

Take a look at |this picture and compare to the picture in the Murray Chotiner article. Is that Chotiner on the left, looking down? I'm very bad at facial recognition and I'm just not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It does look like him to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the hair is slightly different and he put on a bit of weight before 1956, but I think so too. Obviously he didn't notice the camera or he would have turned invisible! So now we have a free picture of Chotiner for his article and we can lose the Life magazine one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For the info box? He is rather in the background, isn't he? Also, in the Murray Chotiner article the picture of Nixon is so dark that I can barely make out that it is a head shot, nevermind of whom. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the campaign shot is not that good for Chotiner. I will include it in the article though. I have a better one of Nixon, but need to upload it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe candidates

Both of them were utter nut jobs, I'm discovering. Meyer was arrested days after the general election on bigamy charges, and turned out to have six wives (well, there may have been one valid divorce). Levitt was a former law professor, the plaintiff in Ex parte Levitt which sought to have Hugo Black disqualified from being on the Supreme Court, and later got in a lawsuit against Gerald Smith, the anti Semitic fellow nut job. Amazing they got any votes. Too bad it would be a distraction to put it in the article. Well, maybe a phrase about Levitt, "a former law professor and plaintiff in Ex parte Levitt, running on an anti-Catholic platform", eh?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you could add that as the other fringe candidate's occupation (runs dating service) is given. Re "War in Korea; conflict in California", is a semi-colon good in a heading? Looks funny. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See no harm in changing it to a comma, I'll do that. Apparently Levitt was once a judge in the Virgin Islands and ruled that women had to be allowed to vote. I've started a stub article on him and will expand it tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting if no doubt sanitized.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you find these things? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity. I got interested in the fringe candidates. It was hard to find much on Meyer, but Levitt was easy on Google. I've got to go to work but I'll write Levitt's article later!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Crucibulum

Hi Matisse, you were right about the merge, and I combined the two articles. I just needed to set it aside for a while so I could look at it with fresh eyes. I still need to copyedit to make sure there's no repeated info, but the merge gained about 10k of prose for the genus article, and after a good going-over I think I might try submitting for FAC in the near future. Thanks for your help in improving the quality of fungus articles on Wikipedia! Sasata (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks. :) I'll finish the reference section, and if I can find a ref for the sentence I made invisible I'll add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK help requested - Phylactolaemata

Hi, Mattisse, if you are no longer directly involved in DYK (I don't want to involve you in any conflict of interests), could you please have a look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Phylactolaemata and suggest any improvements you can think of. --Philcha (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Philcha, I added some alt hooks. See what you can do with them. You might what to modify them. Regards. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattisse. I just found your "buffet" and have suggested a [[Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_August_3 | smorgasbord version}}. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it should either be "produced" and "survived" or "produces" and "survives". —Mattisse (Talk) 13:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, "produced 800,000" because that's 1 observation but "statoblasts ... survive ..." because the rest is a persistent property of statoblasts. Of course that looks OK to me because I knew what I was thinking when I wrote it :-)

What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. I noted it on the DYK page. If someone thinks it is important enough they will probably fix it, or at least mention it. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing the episodelink and serieslink parameters

Please stop from doing this without explaining exactly why the parameters automatically make a reference a self-reference. And don't do it on random articles; that's disruption to make a point. Do it on Template talk:Cite episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I removed them is because they lead to nonexistent wikipedia pages. The pages do not exist. There should not be false links in the references. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because someone has been messing with the template code, not because they were deliberately put there. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that an important distinction? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The links to the real wikipedia articles still work. Just the ones that do not exist - the episodelink - are removed. Besides, a reference to another wikipedia article is not a real reference. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The episodelink parameter does not even imply a reference to Wikipedia. It's never even appeared in the source-checking for multiple FACs. It's like saying that linking to a book article in {{cite book}} makes that a Wikipedia reference too (it doesn't). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But the links to the episodes are still there. The only difference is that they no longer look like an external link. Looking like an external link to go to another wikipedia article is misleading. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be settled now, just need to wait for the template changes to propogate. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Francis Amasa Walker

I'm in the midst of attempting to address the points you raised in the GA review, but I'm really struggling with how to summarize for the lead. I wanted to inquire if you wanted to attempt a summary or perhaps point me to another GA or FA to use as a template to summarize a man with such multi-faceted and diverse interests. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead is just supposed to summarize the main points of the article. Just summarize each major section, mentioning only the salient points and not the details. There are six major sections in your article, but the lead preferable will have only four paragraghs. Perhaps the first paragraph gives an overall view of who he was. Maybe the second can summarize his military career. The third can summarize his government jobs, the Census and the Indian Bureau and his contributions there. The fourth can do the same for his MIT presidency. And perhaps a short fifth paragraph summarizing his legacy.

This is just a general suggestion. You may want to do it differently. The point is to summarize in a few paragraphs the entire article, generally in the order in which the material is presented in the article. The reader then goes into the article get the details. Just mention the highlights in a summary fashion without much detail.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask me more questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead. I fear it may be too long, but it can always be summarized. Hopefully this is sufficient for GA and beyond! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for your feedback and attention! Madcoverboy (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Putin on left

Thanks for your message. It's basically a matter of learning where things are on the site, and finding ways to get to them quickly. My screen reader JAWS has many quick navigation keys to move between headings, tables, lists and the like which I use to navigate through Wikipedia. Seemingly minor changes can be quite disruptive for me; for example it took me a while to get used to the admin tools because the block and delete links seemed to pop up everywhere, and JAWS puts each link on its own line. I like trying to think out of the box both in real life and Wikipedia, and that often pays off because I notice things that other people don't notice. I dunno ... it's just a combination of obsession with Wikipedia, thinking outside the box, and familiarity with the layout of the site. Graham87 01:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my asking this Graham, but have you always been blind? I'm still thinking about the distinction between the requirements of those who were born blind and those who lost their sight later in life. Regardless, your input to the alt text debate is invaluable, and I really do wish you'd take more of a lead in it, because frankly it seems to me that most of the rest of us are just thrashing around not really knowing what helps and what doesn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Your abilities expand my view of the capabilities of the human brain. Vision is so dominant that those of us depending on it become lazy I think. We don't bother to think, as you do, and reason. The Putin issue is an example. I think being blind results in you knowing more. I know that at times when my electricity is out, I become aware of how helpless I am, how I should pay way more attention to cues in my environment that are not exclusively visual. I would also like to know the answer to the question Malleus asked, although I suspect you have never been sighted, but maybe I am wrong. There are a thousand questions I would like to ask you. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I lost my sight due to retinopathy of prematurity, so I was born with normal sight, but lost my vision *very* early in life. So I was effectively born blind. I'll do what I can for the alt text debate ... some of the questions are hard for me to answer. Graham87 01:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember colours? Also, I assume from your previous comments, you remember basic shapes like "round"? Or did you have to figure out "round" through tactile methods? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's great ... well not that you had retinopathy of course, but that you'll maybe help to centre the alt text debate. I asked this question elsewhere, but as I have your attention here I'll ask it again. If an image is a picture of elephant, do you have a memory of what an elephant looks like? What does a description like "blonde" mean to you? How would you describe an elephant to someone who had never seen one and couldn't see one? So many questions. --Malleus Fatuorum

I don't remember colours, but I remember basic shapes from feeling tactile diagrams of them. As for describing an elephant, I could point you to Blind men and an elephant. :-) Seriously, I'd have trouble describing one; I mean I know they have a trunk and four legs and they're fairly big animals. I associate colours with concepts, like I know that brown grass will be dead, as discussed in some section of the FAC talk page that I have trouble finding for some reason. I can't really imagine blond hair but it can indicate the race of a person and is IMO suitable in an alt text. Graham87 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most interesting ... for me, the alt thing has been an unforeseen annoyance in my latest FAC. Good to know it is worthwhile.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Blond hair in a way is associated with race, as blond hair (hair that is white, or has little colour) is not likely to be natural in a black person. Where did you get your concepts of race? And what are they, in the absence of colour? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's an interesting observation about "blonde hair", because it's most usually nothing to do with race at all, just a fashion statement. Many women lighten their hair colour to become blonde, and even some men. Who was it said that alt text was easy to write? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be true now, but in the country in which I reside there are many "natural blondes" that are obvious and distinguishable from those using it as a "fashion statement". —Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But in the country I live in there are rather few natural blondes, but an awful lot of blonde women. The only real way to tell is to check whether the carpets match the curtains. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I hadn't thought of people dyeing their hair blond. I used to have the blond article on my watchlist, just to check for vandalism, so I should have remembered that. I still have the sky article on my watchlist after finding unreverted vandalism in there, and I enjoy reverting statements like "On a clear day, the sky is green" ... I suppose the vandals have no idea who they're up against. :-) I got my concepts of race mostly from the media, and talking to other people. For example when I wanted to know what Miriam Makeba looked like, shortly after I was introduced to her music, I had to ask whether her looks were typical for her ethnic group because I didn't know. Malleus, what did you mean by checking whether the carpets match the curtains? Or was that just a metaphor for checking her body out. :-) Graham87 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a metaphor for—and I hope Mattisse won't be shocked by this—checking that the colour of pubic hair matches the colour of hair on the head. Well, you did ask. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the type of information only Graham87 thinks to ask. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know what "checking the curtains match the carpets" meant? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that kind of humour may be peculiarly Brit - an odd combination of earthiness and prudery. I'd never seen the phrase before, but understood without thinking. --Philcha (talk)

Same here. Certainly typically Malleus if that is typically Brit. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there are lots more like me over here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I gather there is not much of a "mix" of people in Brit land. Natural blondes are detectable in many more (and less invasive) ways that seeing whether the curtain matches the carpet. Is it a lack of experience with, for example Nordic types in your neck of the woods? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You could hardly be more wrong. We're probably one of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world. My wife has typical Scandinavian/Germanic looks (tall and blonde) while I'm more a reflection of my Norman ancestry (darker and a little brutal). There are shopping areas only a mile or so from our house where you will hardly even see another white person; you might easily believe that your were in Lahore. Outside of the big towns and cities it's a little more homogenous, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hogwash. You don't even know much about true blondes. I have not a drop of English/Irish/Scots/German blood in my body. English is not the dominant language many areas of my town or where I shop. Show me a reference that Great Britain is "one of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world"! Skeptically, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Have it your own way. You obviously know more about me and where I live than I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blond

I dunno if you want me to reply here or at my talk page, but here goes ...

I don't really understand colours as being light or dark, or how they are made, or anything like that. I know that white and black are opposites, as you said on my talk page, and I just associate the intermediate colours with concepts (e.g. healthy grass is green, a clear sky is blue).

I had a brief opportunity to touch a live elephant at Perth Zoo when I was about eight or so. I don't remember much about what it felt like, and wouldn't be able to describe its trunk from memory. I don't often go to zoos or museums because they rarely allow anyone to touch the animals/objects.

I wouldn't say that my experience has been enlarged by blindness, just that it's different. I'm not just blind; I have other conditions that make life even more interesting. Because I was born premature, I have trouble with coordination, for even simple things like tying shoelaces; I use velcro instead. I have difficulty playing any of the sports designed for blind people, even though I created the section about them in the blindness article. I have a one-track mind, so I become obsessed with things like Wikipedia to the exclusion of almost everything else. Graham87 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that colors are used to mean concepts and symbols most of the time, rather than having any meaning in and of themselves. Are there not petting zoos in Perth where you can be near and touch animals? What I remember about elephants in the intensity of their presence, the smells and sounds, as well as appearance. On another subject, I just read that the way Wikipedians write in talk threads make difficulties for screen readers, using parentheses and dashes and other characters that interrupt. What are the things that the rest of us do without thinking that bother you the most? Also, I have wondered, if text is in all caps, does your voice synthesizer shout at you? I have a one-track mind also, but sometimes it turns into a too many track mind and I can't keep track of anything. Right now my home is covered with green that I must have chopped away or the green will take over along with the critters that come with it. I was warned yesterday about this danger. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any actual petting zoos in Perth, but sometimes Perth Zoo has open days where handlers show people reptiles or other animals and allow the visitors to pet them.

Parentheses and dashes don't bother me, and JAWS doesn't make any distinction between lower-case and all-caps text except when it's reading by character (like A, L, L, C, A, P, S). The things that bother me the most are when people change the position of the table of contents using templates like {{TOCright}}, and when they put line breaks between items in bulleted lists. If you have a list of 7 items with line breaks between each item, it messes up the HTML and JAWS will read it like this: "list of 1 items, list end, list of 1 items, list end, list of 1 items ..." - you get the idea. Without the line breaks, it will be read as "list of 7 items: blah, blah, blah ... list end". Graham87 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll just clarify that parentheses and dashes don't bother me because I have JAWS set to speak less punctuation than it would by default. I made that decision long before I started editing Wikipedia, because I hated the way JAWS said "colon" for the ":" after every single prompt in Windows. The parentheses and dashes would probably bother people using the default punctuation settings, however. Graham87 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your experience regarding line breaks in bullets and nonstandard TOC should be in WP:ACCESS. I will certainly be conscious of it from now on. Also, you or someone said that when people intersperse comments in threads, where comments by the different people can only be detected visually, it is difficult to impossible for screen readers to make sense of this. That is interesting to know that JAWS is flexible and that you can set preferences. Does it interpret all the internet abreviations and smiley face type things people use, or do you just know what they mean already through your own experience? You should be interviewed by the Signpost. Your insights are valuable. Do you know other blind Wikipedians? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already put the list thing in WP:ACCESS, and the TOCright problem is mentioned there as well as a few other places like Help:Section. It's difficult for me to make sense of long threaded discussions where people intersperse comments, but I usually manage by checking out the sigs and timestamps. JAWS has an Internet abbreviations and emoticons dictionary, but it's not enabled when doing web browsing because interferes with other words and symbols. I know what most of them mean by now, and if not, I just look them up on Wikipedia or Google. The only other blind admin I know is Academic Challenger; there are other blind editors who are less active such as Weichbrodt and Fastfinge. I'd never thought of being interviewed by the Signpost, even though I've read and copyedited the newsletter for over four years now. I probably have some interesting stories to tell ... I've done quite a few things here in the last four years! Graham87 16:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you would make a wonderful interviewee. Where would I go to suggest you as a subject? I don't know who runs Signpost. But especially as alt test has suddenly become a subject of interest, your perspectives are especially relevant. Diversity in views and experiences is the saving grace of Wikipedia. I have been reading about JAWS and see that there is a steep learning curve, especially for a technologically challenged person like me. Do you have the professional version? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask Ragesoss, who is the current Signpost editor. He'd probably let you do the interview if you'd like. I have a professional version of JAWS; you can download the demo here. Graham87 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

Mattisse, I'd be happy to see an interview with Graham in the Signpost. Would you like to do the interview, as Graham suggests?--ragesoss (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to try, especially if you can give me some guidance as I have never done an interview for a publication in my life. Perhaps you could give me some links to past Signpost interview so I could get an idea of what is wanted. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The Signpost style is pretty flexible for interviews, so in general I would say just use your best judgment. One approach I like is to summarize a relevant issue (e.g., the alt text debate or WP:ACCESS) as neutrally and concisely as you can (basically in order to give the readers context), and then ask an open-ended question related to that issue that lets the interviewee share his perspective on it. What I would find interesting would be finding out what it's like for a person who is blind to be an active editor... what sorts of methods and tools does he use to access the site and keep up with things, what sorts of problems does he encounter, etc. You might also ask some more general questions, so that readers get a feel for Graham as an editor... what areas does he work in, what's he proud of, etc.; that kind of thing is often a good way to start out. And then after the interview you can compose a sentence or two for the introduction to explain to readers why you are interviewing him and give them an idea of whether they might (or might not) want to read the whole interview. You can browse some Signpost interviews with the WikiProject reports; here's the latest one: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-27/WikiProject report. For another type of interview, you can check out the questions I put to the Wikimedia board candidates, for example, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009 Board elections/Adam Koenigsberg.--ragesoss (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Central Troy Historic District GA candidacy

About ten days ago I made some changes in response to your comments. Can you please look at them and make your GA decision? Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciated that you appreciated the work Wade and I have put into it. And yes, you will probably be seeing it at FAC sometime in the medium term. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview

I don't think I'm going to be around much longer mattisse, but my email address will still work if you think I can help with the interview. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideas for interview

I suppose that my usability issues would be the most important thing for the interview, but only a fraction of my work is accessibility-related. I' do a lot of history merging and work to preserve old pages like those at the historical archive. I also upload music to Wikipedia and add sound samples to articles; see my user page at Commons. I've done some fairly crazy things, as you can see on my user page and my talk page archives, but most of my work has just been standard WikiGnoming. Graham87 04:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Graham, I'm sure that most of work has been standard WikiGnoming. But one of the distinctive features of your work is your contributions to discussions about WP:ACCESS and related topics. While you naturally don't want to be known as "that blind editor", your accessibility work is what gets your name recognised - heck, I've known it for about a year without trying at all. I also know from your recent contributions to the alt text discussions that you can paint a vivid picture of what using WP is like for a blind editor, and that will grab readers' attention much more strongly than the typical "village magazine" article, especially if introduced by a good tag line in the issue's contents page. --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, being blind has influenced my editing in many ways, not just my input into accessibility discussions. I don't take photos for Wikipedia; I'm not like the blind guy in this film. I like uploading audio files of music because that's the only way I can access it easily; musical scores are inaccessible to me, and Braille music is difficult to obtain. I uploaded all the images in the article white cane, which my former mobility instructor took for me. There were no images of canes in the article, and I found a request for a photo on the talk page. I thought that I was in a good position to fulfill the request.

My blindness also influences the types of edits I make: removing spacing between list items, trying to rearrange the TOC so it's in the standard position, and even spelling fixes, because some spelling mistakes stick out like a sore thumb to me. So there is probably a lot to talk about related to my experience of blindness alone. Even though, as you said, I don't want to be known as "just that blind editor", it's an important part of my editing experience. Graham87 09:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So all you need is a good tag line for the issue's contents page. Mattisse will think of something eye-catchng, she's good at DYK hooks. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Senate again

In the background section, I think you edited to "most major California officeholders were Republican". Wouldn't that be better as "Republicans"?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. You wouldn't say "all California officeholders are Americans", would you? Or should I think of a better example. "All Americans are Americans?" I think you are obsessing too much over the article, and when you do that, then your writing "idiosyncrasies" tend to creep in. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you improve the final paragraph of the lede? I'm very satisfied with the ending, but the first sentence needs work. Feel free to do what you like with it. I think the lede needs to end with the nicknames, because the "Tricky Dick" is a way to get the reader to go on to the rest of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Promoted! Nearly as ugly as the campaign itself, but it made it. I don't have anything nearly ready for FAC, so that gives things time to calm down and so forth. Couldn't have done it without your help and calming influence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank god! congratulations. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And to you, feel free to add it to your stats. Not looking for TFA for this one anytime soon, 60th anniversary is next November, that would be a good time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dog Day Afternoon

Just came across this article, which it looks like you also went through a couple days ago. I've fixed as many links as I can, and removed or replaced what couldn't be fixed or wasn't necessary; all that's left now is the IMDB stuff which is probably hopeless, and I also added a {{fact}} tag to at least one sentence. Of course, there are lots of other minor problems that need to be cleaned up, such as ref formatting.

On a side note...do you have any thoughts on redirecting Elizabeth Eden to this article (to the Historical subsection) or to John Wojtowicz? It seems that she is not notable for anything other than connection with this event. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I am not in favor of redirecting articles out of existence if they can establish their notability independently, which Elizabeth Eden does. I like short to-the-point articles and don't want to wade through Dog Day Afternoon to read about her. Also, adding this detail to the movie article would not benefit that article. She apparently has relevance to the LGBT community. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Palladian architecture

Bored again Mattise, trolling again, or just taking an interest in the finer things of life [5]? So sorry, to dissapoint you, but neither of those paragraphs are by me. However, they were by someone who knew what they were talking about. How destructive your trolling is becoming - I thought you were never going to darken those FARC areas again with your presence - obviously just another of your "statements!" Giano (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Giano, it's always difficult to know how to handle interestig but sub-par additions to FAs or GAs. Way back at the start fo my editing experience, I corrected 3 scientific errors and a WP:UDUE issue in an old FA (i.e. not up to the standard of the time, let alone now), in the course of which I significantly increased the proportion of the article that was supported by citations. Then someone reverted it because they didn't like my style!

The paras Mattisse removed were unsourced, and their prose was convoluted, so they were nowhere near FA standard. My immediate reaction was that they should be removed for now but then improved and added back.

Mattisse, I suggest you paste the diffs to the Talk page and ask for interested editors to source and reinstate as much as they can, and clean up the prose. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove any paragraphs. Giano did.[6] —Mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - Giano removed them after you tagged them. Does that mean he both agreed with the tagging and considered it trolling???

It might still be best for you to post the diffs of the tagging and removal to the Talk page, in case Giano does not do so. --Philcha (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I would be starting trouble if I did that. Could you do it with my permission? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think imposing "no go" areas is a good way to implement "the plan". I suggest you do the posting, noting that another editor removed the contnet, but using the most neutral language possible. However if after a bit more thought you still think a neutral statement plus request for help in improving that content would be asking for trouble, leave me a message and I'll do it tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattise, is just up to one of her games, before nominating for FARC or whatever, some may call it trolling others stalking - who knows and who cares - life is too short to be bothered by Mattisse or even Wikipedia- so go nominate Mattisse, or get one of your friends too - I am away at the moment - so you should have a good run at it. Giano (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Giano, on reading your comments here and at Talk:Palladian architecture, I wish you an enjoyable holiday/wikibreak and hope you will return suitably refreshed and enthusiastic to contribute to the project. Geometry guy 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reason

I'm sorry to read your decision, but I do understand. I shall plug away for the time being. It's important to remember that there are more important things in life than wikipedia articles, and we only do this for fun. Of course we all encounter other editors from time to time who we want to murder, but sometimes I find I learn a lot in the process of arguing with them. Regards SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, that is true. But entrenched academicians are the worst jargon-mongers. Hopeless article, I my opinion. But I will support you in any attenpt to raise its standards. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gyeongju

Hello, Mattisse. I saw you checking on sources on the article of Gyeongju for FARC. If possible, would you hold you review for a while? I've been working on the article, and replaced 12 dead links with others and added new 90 inline sources. I know the article that passed FA in 2004 is not like one of currently promoted FA articles, but I've tried to comply to the demands from reviewers. Still, the article has 6 dead links in total, and 10 something inline sources should be added. I could add them in a couple of days. However, I've known that you reviews for FA articles have significantly weighted to the community, so honestly, I'm afraid what you would evaluate it. So I'm seeking a favor. Thanks.Caspian blue 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed all the progress you make and was not intending to weigh in at this point. You certainly deserve more time. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--Caspian blue 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Okeanos Explorer

Hi. I've been on the verge of verifying your hook for Okeanos Explorer twice and stopped myself because it should really be merged with USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). The resulting article would qualify for DYK as a 5x expansion. If you agree and feel like doing the merge, drop me a note and I'll verify the hook for you. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is merged, the name needs to be retained, as all the new information forthcoming will be titled Okeanos Explorer as are all the sources. Current and future NOAA and other articles will refer to it by the Okeanos Explorer name. The USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16) has ceased to exist. It would not be right to title Okeanos Explorer under an article name that is no longer relevant. Readers will not understand why Explorer info is under that title. I would be against your suggestion. If you want, the article should mention the former name as USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). The Okeanos Explorer is followed on Twitter, not USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An example of how this situation can be handled is the first paragraph of the FA USS Siboney (ID-2999) which has redirects from its former names, such as USAHS Charles A. Stafford, and mentions the previous names in the lede. I think that something along the lines of "...MV Okeanos Explorer, formerly known as USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16)" would do the trick nicely. Keeping the article name Okeanos Explorer seems perfectly logical. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the article is named Okeanos Explorer, its ok. Some places it is called NOAAS Okeanos Explorer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Marcantonio

Excellent article about him here--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul and FARs

Well I can't close ones that I nominated or edited non-superficially. Raul scheduled TFA 17 days in advance at the start of the month. He normally doesn't do this, so maybe he is going to be lying low until Aug 18 or so :( YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Started a discussion at WT:FAR YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. Please don't take the recent discussions at FAR to mean that you've been doing bad things and that you should leave. Nobody thinks there is anything wrong with individuals; rather, some are questioning the current culture at FAR. I sincerely hope that you continue to stay, as your presence has been totally positive—I'm sure others would agree. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Brit mafia

(DYK) ... that the Brit mafia supply the majority of your mentors? --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take it easy for a day or 2, as you seem to be getting stressed and might say something you'll regret - I noticed some expression of feeling unwanted at FAR. Send me a message if you want to talk - hell, you can even argue with me or call me a thug in a pinstripe, with a Tommy gun in the brolly, I won't mind :-) --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to back off and not engage in it for a while. (I didn't know Geometry guy was British, until he disclosed it yesterday. I didn't know what he was, thinking perhaps Australian. It even occurred to me he might be U.S. or Canadin. His comments are remarkably free of nationalism, one of his many fine qualities.) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

James Joyce

Are you not able to access this page? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your edits on talk before reverting twice (see WP:3RR). I don't have a membership, and I can access the information. Please use the article talk page before continuing to revert, to explain why you can't access a page that others can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am able to access that page, Dabomb87, but twice before when I tried, it asked for my membership and login. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, when another editor indicates it is not membership only, please consider discussing on talk before reverting. AGF. Similar issues are occurring at the unreviewed featured article page; stability in FA and related pages is a concern, so please discuss edits before reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. And I suggest you do the same. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, when you have been reverted once, and a reason has been given, then you should attempt to understand the problem before you revert twice. Would you please remove this edit now, since it's not correct? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

Mattisse, a tip about marking links as dead. Many links can be retrieved from the Internet archive, and it's a very quick and easy process. For example, you marked this as dead in Joyce. If you go here and enter the URL into the box where it says wayback machine, you'll come to this page, which gives you a list of archived versions. Choose the one you need, which will almost always be the most recent one e.g. November 18, 2007, and add that to the article instead. Some websites don't allow their archives to be stored; for example, newspaper websites sometimes need their pages to disappear for legal reasons, but I've found that most of the time citations can be saved this way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I lost my edit in the conflict, but basically I would like to thank SlimVirgin as I have always wondered how to do that. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The link checker is a very handy tool for identifying and fixing dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I use the toolserver, but I have found that it is quite inaccurate. You really have to check each link, as it indicates many are ok when they are 404. There is no substitute for checking. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is not always correct, which is why I always check. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Struck comments

If you want to discuss this, you are welcome. If not, that is also fine. Concerning the article at GAR, my view is it is preferable to see how the discussion pans out before discussing concerns that articles may be getting listed inappropriately. Best wishes, Geometry guy 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked directly for two weeks

I have blocked your account from editing for a period of two weeks for abusive sockpuppetry. CheckUser evidence shows that CallMeNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Big Toxic Personality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and VividMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all being operated by the owner of this account.

I have emailed the ArbCom mailing list with the technical data relating to this case.

If you wish to contest this block, you may do so by placing {{unblock|reason}} below this notice. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with J.delanoy's CU findings. In addition, the SPAs all seem to be targeting Bishonen, who I know Mattisse has some issues with, based on previous encounters at FAR, AN/I, and other drama huts. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with J.delanoy's & Nishkid64's CU findings. --Versageek 03:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I have no "issues" with Bishon. However, I get the strong hint and will leave Wikipedia. You make your choices about who to favor and who to kick away. I am gone. I see you favor certain editors at the expense of trashing others. I am willing to leave Wikipedia. It is an ugly place ruled by cabals. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I am saddened that you are unwilling to let go of personal issues and carry on with your productive article work. However, I implore you to return to Wikipedia after this block and focus solely on what you do well: improve articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have no issues as you assume. If my contributions are not good enough, I am willing to leave. It is time to stop trying to contribute to Wikipedia when this is my reward. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I sign off on the above block, not that it matters. Prodego ^talk 03:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bishon says that I am not an enemy.[7] So the petty accusations are enough to rid Wikipedia of me. That tells me louder than anything that I was a fool to work for this project. Thank you for letting me know so loud and clear. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What were the edits of CallMeNow that were worth a two week block? They are deleted so I cannot tell. What were the "abusive" edits by the other account. I do not see any in the conbributions of that account. Others are allowed to have undisclosed sockpuppets. So, even if these were mine, what is the harm? It took Arbcom a month to desyp Geogre for a two year sockpuppet spree of abusive sockpuppeting and he was never blocked that I recall. Favouritism at it's worse on Wikipedia. There is a cabal for real, protecting the elite. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:

• It was bloody stupid impolitic of Mattisse to get involved in something like this - note my use of "impolitic".
• However the block was grossly disproportionate, considering the way we mollycoddle defacers of articles.
• There is obviously gross inequality before the law of WP. Geogre used undisclosed socks for 2 years to stack discussions, but was only de-sysopped. Bishonen does not seem to exploit socks in such a systematic way, and half the time it likes look she's satirising socks - but it's bad a precedent and should be discouraged (disclosure: after recent discussions about Geogre and Bishonen, I'd advocation forbidding the use of socks unless a dispensation is gained in advance). Mattisse uses 3 socks for a handful of days and gets a 2 week block.

I think those who support the block should explain why there was no prior warning and why the block was so severe. --Philcha (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• What Mattisse appears to have done was "impolitic" at best, and I'd go so far as to say bloody stupid. But I don't see anything in the contributions of CallMeNow to warrant such a severe punishment, without warning. As Philcha says above, it really does confirm what many already know; favoured sons like Geogre—and many others—routinely get away with behaviours that would get a less popular editor blocked. Corrupt doesn't even get close to describing the chaotic governance of this place. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I too would be interested in knowing why there were no prior warning and why the block was for as long as it is. John Carter (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• From what I can see, while the sockpuppetry is juvenile in character, it is barely abusive. A couple of childish comments from one account, a second account not used abusively, and a third unused account hardly call for a drastic block unless there is a prior pattern/history of abusive sockpuppetry. I suggest rescinding the block and warning the user instead. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse has been here for 3 years. We're supposed to just give her a slap on the wrist for sockpuppetry now? I don't think the user should be unblocked, but perhaps the block could be reduced to 31 hours or something along those lines. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Furthermore, this looks to me like a clear case of WP:GHBH, which by definition is a violation of our sockpuppetry policy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see any evidence of WP:GHBH, and neither do I believe that sockpuppets—whether disclosed or not—is necessarily a blocking offence. Many do so without being blocked, and have done so over extended periods of time. Even some ArbCom members. The length of this block seems disproportionate to the crime. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• "All users are proscribed from operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy. It is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior." In my opinion, this and this are disruptive. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• The sockpuppetry and subsequent lame denials of such completely surprised me not in its stupidity and pettiness, but its direction at Bishonen of whom I have very little knowledge and negligible interaction. I have little opinion on the protocol for blocking sockpuppets, but I have quite strong opinions that this is but another example of a pattern of disruption of the sort the ArbCom case was opened on Mattisse in the first place. Mattisse has scores to settle, and it does not seem to matter what article improvement processes or Wikipedia policies are in place, because by God, she is out to settle them all. If Mattisse's mentors-turned-defenders impress the blocking admins enough to reduce or void the block, I'm fairly going to insist the ArbCom case be re-opened, even if I must do it myself. Mattisse's mentors need to start addressing this problematic behavior at once and not in private. She is her own worst enemy, self-defeating and projecting blame in all directions. Wikipedia is not for everyone. If Mattisse cannot let other editors alone, let her retirement stand, work with her earnestly to change her behavior, or block her for the 60-day period suggested by NewYorkBrad. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I am in no way defending what Mattisse has done. As I said, I think it was bloody stupid, and I was rather shocked at its pointless childishness. My only concern is that all editors are treated equally in such cases. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps those posting against this block have forgotten (or never read or never understood) that checkuser evidence shows this to be a long-standing trend, not a new editing behavior for Mattisse ? To use socks while under ArbCom sanction, when she has been CU verified as socking before, and against an editor with whom she has been in prior conflict surely warrants the two weeks. More importantly, IMO ArbCom missed the boat in its first ruling by not recognizing that a short break (as suggested by NYB, which he did *not* call a block) is something that could be very good for Mattisse. Mattisse, I urge you to take the time off, re-think your priorities, and enjoy the break. I've always found that it takes more than a few days away from Wiki to be able to come back refreshed and renewed, and I hope you'll take that chance. It could change your perspective. Philcha, once again, you are doing Mattisse no favors by defending this behavior; she looks to you for guidance, and you continually turn a blind eye to the ongoing behaviors that lead to Mattisse's problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

To Nishkid64 Please provide proof of your charges

You say you "agree with J.delanoy's CU findings. In addition, the SPAs all seem to be targeting Bishonen, who I know Mattisse has some issues with, based on previous encounters at FAR, AN/I, and other drama huts." Please show me where I have had any dealings with Bishonen at all. Even Bshon says I have not http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&curid=14915080&diff=310516630&oldid=310504781

Please provide proof of your charges. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

From Bishonen's page (copied)

Little friends should always be protected. ;) The silent one 03:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

O'Hai, little Brass! To think I never guessed that one. [Feels a right Charlie.] But then I merely thought in terms of somebody I was in conflict with, and I have no conflict with that user. Check out the link, Giacomo—I guess you're the one with the conflict. Thanks, Daedalus. Bishonen | talk 09:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

DYK for AltaRock Energy

On August 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article AltaRock Energy, 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) 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.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to know why others can have playful sockpuppets and I cannot - I was just doing what Bishonen does all the time - use sockpuppets in a "playful" manner. - I was making a joke about Bishonen's socks & get blocked for doing it

I though I was just doing what Geogre and Bishonem do all the time - use sockpuppets in a "playful" manner. I was making a joke about Bishonen's sock with a tiny little sock. But I am not in the "in" crowd at Wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The best that can be said about your sockpuppets is that you displayed rather poor judgement in setting them up in the present climate. What on Earth were you thinking of? --Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I too tend to agree that some of the names, which while not as obvious as "Bishzilla", were ones which many people would have fairly quickly recognized, and would have been fairly easily obvious to most people, particularly those directly involved. I'm not sure that the specific actions were appropriate, like adding the links on the top of someone's talk page to what are said to be alternate accounts, but at the same time I have very real trouble seeing how they were really worthy of any sort of block. This belief is, yes, at least in part based on the fact that Geogre, who admitted to using a multiple account for some time, wasn't blocked for it. Blocking or closing the alternate accounts to me seems reasonable, but I don't think that a two week block on the primary is necessarily called for in this instance, based on the information visible to me. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I thought it was a joke. I don't know what the rules are. User:Bishonen can have User:Little Toxic Personality so I had User:Big Toxic Personality. User:Bishonen has User:Toxic Avenger so I had User:CallMeNow to make a point about socks. I find the using of socks offensive, I wanted to make that point. But I am not allowed to do what others regularly do. There are specially harsh rules for me that do not apply to others. That is what I am thinking of. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That really is the issue, you made your point in a disruptive fashion. What sort of logic makes it okay to use a sock puppet to discourage sock puppetry? Think about it, any point you may have had, regardless of validity, is discredited by the hypocrisy of your methods. Chillum 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, you posted hostile comments at User talk:CallMeNow after User:CallMeNow was blocked from editing User talk:CallMeNow. You may not have realised User:CallMeNow was blocked from User talk:CallMeNow, but your actions could be interpreted as cowardly. If you want anyone to pay attention to your opinions and for the sake of your own reputation, I suggest you retract those remarks. --Philcha (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I will gladly discuss this matter with you on my talk page Philcha. Chillum 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking about it. Ohers do the same thing, make disruptive points with their sockpuppets, I thought that was the "playful" way to do it. That is the way it is regarded when others do it. I made a few quite harmless edits to make a point, as I have watched all the sockpuppeting go on and condoned. I have made my dislike of sockpuppets known and really do not understand why they are allowed for the elite editors. How is anyone able to understand the rules around here? How was I to know I would be treated differently? Was what I did worse that Geogre. Yet he was treated better. Never blocked at all. Because Geogre was even allowed to keep his alternate account. It was unblocked so he could, even though he had used it abusively. That is why I am confused. Was I more disruptive than Geogre or the many others who do it while admins look the other way? Why not look the other way for me too? I don't get it. I really do not. I made a few harmless edits that I will now accept as poor judgment, but at the time they merely seemed like the sockpuppeting edits I see all the time by others. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"He's done it as well, so why pick on me" is probably just about the worst defence you could mount Mattisse. You do not occupy the moral high ground by aping the behaviours that you claim to be protesting against. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, of course people have reasons and explanations for doing things. When we lash out in frustration at something, it appears to us at the time that we have a valid reason for doing it. Later, when people point out that we were wrong, we learn not to do it again. By creating the CallMeNow account and saying this, you were misbehaving. It was an inappropriate thing to do, and in doing that you have created drama, been offensive to another user, let yourself and others down (I feel somewhat embarrassed that I have defended and still defend you when you do things like that), and you have distracted from our main purpose and what you are so good at, and that is building the encyclopedia. What I'd like to see you do now is stop making excuses for your action - take responsibility, realise you did an inappropriate thing, apologize for what you have done and reassure us you won't do it again. SilkTork *^YES! 15:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I let you down

• I am very sorry I let you and others down. I was not lashing out in frustration, however. That was not my emotion. Really, I thought of it as a playful trick. I understand that others do not see it that way. I had no reason to "lash out in frustration". Maybe "lashing out" in discouragement. I have never had interactions with Bishonen. I have been watching all the sockpuppeting and wanted to make a point. I really did not think it was a serious act that would bring about this type of punishment. I also though warnings had to precede blocks. The fact that I have let you down means I should not be editing at Wikipedia. I have been trying very hard and I have failed. I am very sorry for that. I failed, not because I was "lashing out" but because I really do not understand the rules. The community did not follow my ArbCom plan so it was hopeless anyway. I thought the plan was supportive and would help me understand these finer points that I do not seem to get, but in the end I was not protected from arbitrary punishment. So I am gone from Wikipedia. I can hever hold my head up here again after this. I do have some pride and I have tried to do a good job and further the encyclopedia. But I have failed. To be honest, I am not capable of doing much better than I was doing. I will always make mistakes. If my plan did not work, if I am blocked for two weeks over what I did, then I am unfit to be here and cannot continue. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Another course of action would be to wait out the two weeks, and perhaps wait a bit longer if you think it prudent, and then come back and resume your good work here. You are not perfect, and the system is not perfect either. It is a fact that some people on Wikipedia do indeed get special treatment, and while I don't agree with your methods, or for that matter your targets, I do agree that there is some validity to the claim of a double standard. I would very much like it if you asked me to replace the {{retired}} tag on your user page with a {{wikibreak}} tag. Chillum 16:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Chillum is probably offering good advice. Although I believe that the punishment is excessive for the crime, it's apparent that a significant body of others do not, and that if the block length is reduced then the ArbCom case is quite likely to be reopened, which would certainly not have a good outcome for you Mattisse. Some of us have to be more careful in what we do than others, who are given more leeway; just the way it is. I can't change that, you can't change that. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Why I remained after the ArbCom was that ArbCom realized that I had been treated unfairly, that it was a two-way street and it was not my behavior that was entirely at fault but others also. They said I had been baited. They noted in their decision that even during the ArbCom, certain editors continued to "snipe" at me. They were trying to protect me from this type of arbitrary punishment and heckling I was receiving before by providing me with mentor/advisers in my plan User:Mattisse/Plan. The fact that ArbCom and the plan could not protect me means it is hopeless. But thank you for your thoughts. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your persistent misrepresentation of the events at and surroundoing that ArbCom case are at the root of your ongoing problems. No rational person would come to the conclusions that you have about what ArbCom recognised, or that they were in any way trying to protect you from anything. I'm very much afraid that until you hold your hand up and admit that you have been at least as much at fault as those you believe have been "sniping" at you—with no "ifs", "buts", or "it wasn't really my fault, I was provoked"s—the situation is hopeless, and you will end up being banned. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't that the plan did not "protect" you, it was that you acted in ways which are, generally, not found acceptable. Bishonen, particularly with Bishzilla and its alleged spawn, is more or less a known quantity, particularly with Bishzilla's clearly over-the-top way of speaking style. Whether the actions of those particularly accounts in question were appropriate is a separate matter, and it really isn't anyone's place to respond to them personally, and particularly not to try to make any sort of point, but rather to refer such matters to the appropriate "authorities". I'm not sure what if anything the blocking admin would do if there were a request to shorten the period of the block, but right now, there are as I see only two options of what others could do. What you do is of course up to you.

• 1) If the blocking admin saw real evidence that you regretted the actions which led to the block, and believed you would be unlikely to engage in such behavior again, there is a chance, although I'm not necessarily sure how good of a one, that the block might be shortened. I wouldn't try to rely on that too much.
• 2) The other is to basically, just wait out the two weeks.
• Regardless of which option comes to be, I very much think that based on your own statements you were trying to prove a point, and there really is no purpose to such actions around here. Basically, I and all the other admins and senior editors already know that there are inconsistencies and occasional unreasonable deference in the system to some editors. There's no real point in trying to prove a point everybody accepts already. Wikipedia does not and never has existed in a perfect world, and it has its flaws as much as anything else does. What we should try to do is try to take direct potentially productive action to address those matters when we can, and, if for whatever reason that doesn't work, and we all know that at times it doesn't, just carry one anyway. The only real point we have to prove here is that the information we gather and present to the world is the best that a collaborative body of this nature can produce. The internal politics are really not something we should even want to do much about, particularly not on our own. We have the various governance bodies for that. You are probably one of the best editors we have in what you do, and we would be very much the worse off if you were to leave, voluntarily or involuntarily.

I would personally suggest that at this point, if you think you can give the blocking admin a reason to shorten the block, that you do so. Otherwise, the best thing to do is wait the block out and return when it's expired. God knows there are a ton of articles out there in less than good shape, any of which you could find material on to improve in that time.

You could always take the time off to have a break from this place, which something most of us need regularly. I know for myself there are a rather distressingly large number of items from The Teaching Company I would like to access. You could always do something like that. Alternately, if you still wanted to spend the time doing something related to this site, maybe working on developing one of our less impressive articles might be the best way to spend the period, as it would give you a bit of a break from your routine. John Carter (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I only yesterday realized Bishonen and Bishzilla were the same person. I do not know all the politics behind regarding her and I don't get what is going on there, the baby talk etc. But the sockpuppets were already known, just like Geogre's were, to the special group. I think the blocking admin is one of those protecting that special group, judging from the posts. She posted that she had no conflicts with me when he notified her he was blocking me. I do regret what I did, and would never have done it if I thought it was serious. I realize now that it was trying to prove a point, and that trying to make a point is wrong on Wikipedia. But I believe he will not reduce the block, as probably it is in revenge for my speaking up at Geogre's ArbCom and makes Giano happy. I should have known I would be punished for that. Very stupid of me, but I did not connect the dots.
• I will not return to Wikipedia after two weeks. There is no way I would do that. Other users I respected have left for the same reasons and stayed away. Besides, it would be breaking the terms of my ArbCom to say that I was leaving and then come back. That was one of the accusations against me, that I do not keep my work in such matter. I will keep my word.
• I will try emailing him that I am sorry and ask if he will reduce the block. If not, then I am gone, if there is no other appeal I can make. And apparently there is not.
• I do thank you for all of your help. It has meant a lot to me. I have a very high opinion of you.

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• "I think the blocking admin is one of those protecting that special group ... I believe he will not reduce the block, as probably it is in revenge for my speaking up at Geogre's ArbCom and makes Giano happy." For Christ's sake Mattisse, you're just not getting it, are you. There you go making more accusations against all and sundry when you need to be showing some understanding that what you have done is unacceptable. So what if someone else is doing it as well, without being similarly punished? Does that excuse your behaviour? No it fucking doesn't. You either have to shape up or ship out now, there are no other options. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

If you do return Mattisse, please check out WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point before doing so. Think about the number of editors who have been diverted from improving the encyclopedia by your actions, and all the talk page comments and arguments this has generated. You've received a lot of good advice in the last 24 hours. What have you learned? (PS. The wrong answer is "everyone's out to get me".) Geometry guy 21:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom findings regarding my behavior

I believe ArbCom is saying the important dimensions of my behavior that need to be addressed are the following:

1. I cast aspersions.
2. I personalize the routine remarks of others.
3. I make accusations and personal attacks on others.
4. I have accused a group of editors of cabalism. I composed a list including these editors among others.
5. I continue to comment long after an issue is resolved and this is considered POINTy.
6. I make statements that I will no longer participate in a particular forum but I have returned to that forum.

• Note. Regarding casting aspersions:

• This applies to people commenting on Mattisse as well as Mattisse commenting on others. Civil behaviour is required both ways here, as is use of dispute resolution, rather than sniping, bringing up old disputes, and returning to previous behaviour. Some have pursued dispute resolution here. Others have sniped. -Carcharoth.
• This was noted in other places in the Decision and supported by another Arbcom member.

The sniping has started up in the last weeks, even personal attacks and uncivil comments by others. They broke the rules above but I did not. I have not engaged in the above behaviors to my knowledge, and if close, I have followed my mentor's advice. Making a joking sockpuppet statement was "impolitic" and very poor judgment, but it was not made with malice by rather to make fun. I am not malicious like some of the statements made to and about me lately. And I have not sniped, as others do to me. There are those who will not rest until I am gone. They want things their way and occasionally I have a different opinion, so I must be denigrated and snuffed out. ArbCom was trying to level the playing field, but they could not do it. It is too bad, but I see there is to much of network out to get me and it is hopeless. There is nothing I can do to stop this. This incident drains all hope. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sniping and casting aspersions: [8], [9] (edit summary), [10], [11].
• Accusations of cabalism: [12]

None of these could remotely be construed as "playful" or "joking". You used sockpuppets to cast these aspersions, then acted evasively when called on it, and finally offered unnamed and uncited "attacks" on you as justification. Your statement that others "broke the rules but I did not" suggests that you see nothing problematic in your actions. I see that your mentors have raised some of these concerns above. I am strongly opposed to shortening this block, to the point that I would strongly encourage any admin considering doing so to submit the matter for community review before acting. If there is reason to think that this sort of thing will continue after the 2-week block expires, then I will raise the issue with the Arbitration Committee. This is unhealthy. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do see my sockpuppets are problematic. I admit that the sockpuppet was extremely ill considered and I regret it. Because I saw so many sockpuppets, with some users knowing and some not, I did not think it was a big deal. Geogre used his to harass and stack opinion, and apparently many in the community knew he was doing it. He was not even blocked for the sockpuppeting. In fact, his alternate account, the sockpuppet was unblocked so he could continue to use it. I was harmed by his alternate accounts over time as I explained at his ArbCom. So it never occurred to me that what I did was that serious. If my block is not reduced, I will not be back editing on Wikipedia. You have my word on this. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• You perceived Geogre's alternate account as deeply inappropriate and hurtful ([13]). You also expressed concern at other accounts which you believed to be sockpuppets targeting you ([14]). Obviously, you consider such a practice reprehensible when directed at you. It therefore rings false that you thought it was "no big deal" to target someone else in this fashion.

  Additionally, you were asked one month ago to "stay well away from any discussions related to Geogre/Giano/Bishonen". You agreed to do so ([15]). Your subsequent use of sockpuppets to target these editors renders your agreement meaningless at best. It also calls into question the value of your commitments to amend your behavior, which tend to be made only under duress to begin with. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Geogre's alternate account played a large role in my problems at FAR and thus, over time was partly responsible for ArbCom on me. That was why it was hurtful, all the more so as the other players of the game knew who he was. His alternate account harmed me in several different situations and made me look bad, so that others piled on against me. The sockpuppet gang who targeted me did so over more that a six month period, started and RFC against me, too man AN/I's too count, resulted in several mediations, and ultimately let me to an ArbCom in which YellowMonkey caught the pack of them. Meanwhile I had such a bad rap from all these groundless accusations, and was unjustly blocked because of sockpuppet complaints, that in every situation from then on I was assumed to be wrong. That is the baggage that led me today. So, yes, I saw Bishonen's "playful" socks aimed at Jimmy Wales as in somewhat different category as I did mine, which was a one time deal. Of course, as I realized yesterday, Geogre (whose arbcom I provided evidence in), Giano, and Bishonen are are all together. I just didn't connect the dots until yesterday. But perhaps Bishonen's and mine are in the same category as Geogre and the sock pack. And I guess I am being punished for the Giano, Bishonen, Geogre connect. In any event, I most likely will not be editing, as my block is unlikely to be reduced and you see all the nastiness. Though people keep telling me I am one of the most productive editors on Wikipedia, and one of the most helpful, there are editors dedicated to destroy me. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentor advice

Reluctantly or not, I did take on the role of mentor, so here's my 2cents worth advice to you Mattisse. My initial reaction to the sock-puppetry imbroglio was amazement that you would do such an stupid (and petty) thing. The block itself I though excessive because of the limited and innocuous nature of the comments. However, it is quite clear that you crossed a policy line for which a block is not unwarranted and I would have expected you to acknowledge that and to let other editors figure out what combination of a block and warning would be sufficient. Unfortunately your reaction was quite the opposite and, despite the fact that several editors rushed to your defense, you've chosen this moment to air other grievances, make accusations, and raise the level of drama surrounding the incident. That is a lousy idea not only because the focus is no longer on the block itself but also because it does make some of us (your 'supporters') uneasy about the whole temperament issue which seems to follow you. My suggestion is that:

1. make an unqualified apology for the sockpuppetry. An apology that qualifies itself with a I failed, not because I was "lashing out" but because I really do not understand the rules is, IMO, a non-apology.
2. stop reacting to everything that gets written up on the talk page.
3. take chillum's advice and use the two weeks as a wikibreak. Never a good idea to get too involved with anything and you're clearly too involved with this thing.

--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I thought I had made an apology but I will do it again; I have certainly made it by email. I regret deeply the foolish act of sock-puppetry that I engaged in and apologize for the disturbance it has caused. All I can say is that I had no idea of the serious nature of the act I committed or certainly I would not have done it. I voluntarily gave them my IP number so that they could verify it; they would not have been able to do so otherwise. I tried to cooperate. As far as not responding to accusations, if I do not I will have no chance of avoiding the Arbitration that is obviously being prepared for me over what I consider trivial reasons. Other than the sockpuppet, I have done nothing wrong. However, I cannot endure another Arbitration and will not edit if my block lasts two weeks, as there are those already calling for a 60 day block. I learned from the previous arbitration that not responding on the spot brings heartache. If you have another suggestion, I would appreciate it. But when people start listing diffs on your page for every opinion you have ever expressed, then it behooves me to answer now while I have nothing else to do. You think this is wrong? They are collecting "evidence" as we speak. For example, in the past I over looked Moni3's personal attacks. Now I have time to hunt them down. I have no way to record them except on this page, as I cannot edit anywhere else. What do you suggest I do? In two weeks, I will not have the energy to defend myslef. That is why I will not edit again when the two weeks are up. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the hash that I make of my own real life, I'm really uneasy about giving life advice - but a general rule about life is that if you're in the wrong for something and people are throwing shit at you, you've just gotta eat it. You're in the wrong here and you should just eat it. (BTW, on re-reading the discussion, it seems to me that you didn't start the grievance/accusation cycle so apologies for implying you did. Nevertheless, my general advice remains the same.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind admitting I was in the wrong regarding the sockpuppet. But when long list of diffs are provides regarding remarks I made at FAR and accusations are made that I am the most incompetent GA review that editor has ever seen, that I am responsible for that editors problems, etc. all with statements that I need a 60 day ban an implications and statements that I should go back to Arbitration, then I feel I need to defend myself. If I don't do it now, I never will. Personal attacks that are not responded to end up in an Arbitration as fact I found from past experience. This is my last ditch effort at remaining on Wikipedia. If these attacks on me that have nothing to do with the sockpuppet incident are not refused, people tend to accept them as true. This I learned from my psst experience. Most often, the diffs prove nothing, but others tend not to check them out. So you are suggesting that I just give up? You may be right as I am clearly being driven from Wikipedia by a small but determined group, the same ones that worked so hard at getting me banned at my last arbitration. I can cease responding. But that will force my retirement. Maybe that is best. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I requested Ottava Rima be a mentor/ adviser

I did request of Ottava Rima that he be on my panel of mentors/advisers[16] but he did not sign up as was necessary at the arcom signup areas to agree to be on the panel. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for White pox disease

On August 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article White pox disease, 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) 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.

NW (Talk) 23:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice to Mattisse

Writing as a person, rather than an administrator or an arbitrator. I strongly urge that Mattisse step away from the computer and refrain from writing anything on this page for at least several days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconded, but on the condition that Mattisse does indeed return after a while. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, please return after a rest period. You are very helpful in general, not just in writing as everyone seems to be purporting. Best, ceranthor 12:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse? RETIRED?!?!? SOCKPUPPETRY????!!!???!!!??? Can you please come back when this boils over you're a great contributor and helped me with Loihi...we've lost too many great editors already... ResMar 13:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sigh

I don't think she's coming back: she's posted retired all over the place...ResMar 12:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse's block does not expire until Friday. Perhaps she will return after that. Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope Mattise's recent edits indicate that she is indeed not retired. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcluding redux

I had already done the ArticleHistory update, manually. Perhaps you had not noticed this. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't notice. Thank you. I hope I didn't screw things up! (I just noticed your comment now.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

I think all the content it needs is there now. And it didn't turn out quite as long as I thought. Time to start the polishing process, which I see you've been doing as I've gone along. I think it turned out quite well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like a very good job. You handled certain issues very well, in my opinion. And I think your writing style has improved, just little glimmers of the "old style" with the repetition of "the boy", for example! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I learn, I learn. Thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You have dealt with a complex and possibly argumentative issue excellently. You must have cut your teeth on Richard Nixon and now you can do anything! What about Mao next? Seems like he is a cipher. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, Neville Chamberlain?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, why him? What is with you and your selection of subjects? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I picked up a book on him in a bookshop in the UK. I think I kinda like the underdog. Chamberlain certainly qualifies in that regard.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

He seems boring. I won't be buying any books on him. (I think you are a politician.) —Mattisse (Talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

He is boring, I'm afraid. However, it would be a useful article to have move to FA, and it is a failed FAC back way back when (no connection with me), so it would be good for the encyclopedia. I'm not 100 percent sure yet, though if I am going to do it, though I've bought Self's recent bio of him as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Does he at least have some scandal or intrigue about him? A bad childhood? Unfortunate marriage. Something? (Are you going to be an apologist for his tactics?) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I will let his actions speak for themselves, without any POV, as usual. Let others judge. I will mention that his policy was popular at the time, but he was the leader, not the follower. No scandal. He is a bit of a cipher as well. Had a reasonably happy marriage, though rather late. His father was rather neglectful of him, but I don't think it was a terrible childhood by anyone's standards. Rather intolerant of those who did not agree with him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we need to tell the reader how many months the Battle of Stalingrad was, in the lede yet? Or can you come up with a better way of putting it?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Too hard to come up with months accurately, and is there a reason to? I like the "bloody" but I wonder why you do not name the war. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No reason to. Someone put in a comment, "how many months?" Thought it was you. Name the war? Since this article is supposed to be a little Russo centric, I called it the Great Patriotic War whereever I could.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it OK now? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it. It is what it is. Horrifying casualty count.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Margaret Harshaw

On 2 October, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Margaret Harshaw, 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.

\ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Help:Reviewing Article

Dear Mattisse, I found that you are an experienced and efficient user in Wikipedia. Could you please help me by reviewing my nominated article Dhaka Residential Model College ?. I have nominated the article for WP:GA status. If you think that the article is eligible enough for the WP:Good article status then please give it PASS. Thanks, Tanweer Morshed (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not doing GA reviews at the present time. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thank you. Not a pleasant thing, but I'm hoping something constructive will emerge from it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Turpan - just so you know

Alefbe doesn't like me because I blocked him for edit warring several weeks ago and, even though other administrators upheld the block, apparently I am the evil admin who's out to get him. (See discussion here.) So that's why he's going out of his way to make a big deal out of my edits here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also: given that I posted a rationale for this naming over 30 minutes ago and Alefbe has made no effort to respond to it, but has just reiterated over and over again that he thinks it was mean of me to move it, I will assume that 1) he has nothing constructive left to say and thus agrees with my arguments; and 2) he is more interested in trying to get me in 'trouble' than in the article itself. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was just asking. I have written articles referring to the place, but I honestly cannot remember the spelling I used. I would have to look in the reference books I used, which I don't feel like doing at the moment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For example, I was the original author of Emin Minaret. My sources spelled it "Turfan" Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of "Turfan" is generally a result of influence from old sources—it would be roughly analogous to calling Xinjiang "Sinkiang", Nanjing "Nanking", etc. Of course, these Wade-Giles names are still used sometimes (indeed, in some places they're preferred--Beijing was still called Peking not too long ago, and the Yangtze River was never changed over to the pinyin spelling "Yangzi River"), but are generally not standard anymore.

For a bit of background...the /f/ sound is rare in Uyghur (mostly just present in borrowed words, like Kalifuniya--California) and Uyghur speakers often mix it up with /p/...for instance, many say "propessor" instead of "professor". I don't know the etymology of "Turpan", but the word "Turfan" probably comes from English re-translation of the Chinese name (the Chinese language takes great liberties in adapting foreign words to its strict sound system, so the Uyghur name "Turpan" was changed to "Tulufan" when it was brought into Chinese... since Western writers and missionaries had greater contact with Chinese than Uyghurs, it is likely that they back-translated Tulufan into Turfan). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)