Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:44, 4 February 2009

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

• Quid pro quo list

Battle of Hill 70

Thank you for conducting the review. I very much appreciate you doing a bit of copy-editing while reviewing. I have expanded the lead if you would please review and let me know if you are satisfied, that would be greatly appreciated.Labattblueboy (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It has passed as a GA. A great job! Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea

Hi, Mattisse, I'm here to ask a really big favour. I've just issued a "fail" in the GA review of North Sea. The editors have worked really hard, but they don't yet have the skills for such a big topic. I've left some advice at the end of the review. Since I know you're an experienced and helpful GA reviewer, I'd be grateful if you'd have a look and see if there's addtional advice you think would help these editors. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It feels just awful, I known, to fail an article where the editors are motivated and have worked hard. I will take a look and see if there is any more advice to be offered. The topic is big, and also, even though they did not succeed in achieving GA status for the article now, that does not mean they did not learn a great deal from the experience of trying. You offered a great deal of in depth help, and I don't think I could have done as well as you did reviewing the article! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance that I haven't missed anything important or useful. Feel free to call me if I can help you any time. --Philcha (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable person...

The standard came from England... Foofighter20x (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Drizzt Do'Urden/GA1

It's ready for you to take a look whenever you have time. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am looking at it right now. I am trying to find the quotebox template, as under MoS:Quotations the decorative quotation marks are deprecated, I think. I like the quote though - good addition. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Zarqa River

I don't understand your citation request. Please see the comment I left on the talk page of the article. NoCal100 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will look. But the essesnce of it is that you need a reliable source stating that the Zarqa River has been identified as the same one mentioned in the Bible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added such a reliable source to the article, before you tagged it. If there's something wrong with that source, or with what it says, please be explicit about it so I can fix it. NoCal100 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Too tired tonight to do more, but as I remember it was a dictionary source, which is fine for pronunciation and such, but not for the veracity of a historical fact. If in doubt we can ask at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it's The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Have a look when you get the chance. NoCal100 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. That sounds fine. So I will take care of it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the recent changes I've introduced, to "beef up" the article. NoCal100 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good job. The article passes GA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! NoCal100 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Woodes Rogers

Hey Mattisse, Brianboulton now supports at the FAC, hope you will reassess your provisional support to full support.

Also, have you been keeping an eye on discussions at Talk:Rudolf Wolters? Definitely we have some limitations there but I am hoping that I can glean some info out of the German book I have ordered and hopefully will come early next week. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been keeps an eye on the Rudolf Wolters discussions. The article needs work. What happened to your sleek, sparse style, strictly NPOV of the Albert Speer days? (Some of your "journalist" style - "Wolters was angrily intransigent" - seems to have appeared!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put that in there, that was Fainites. I've been meaning to smooth that out. Before we nominate for FA, I will go through it and assure a consistant style. Wolters' blockquotes speak for him better than anyone else would care to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let the material (Rudolf Wolters) speak for itself. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Rogers passed FA (I've nominated it for TFA because the 300th anniversary of the rescue of Selkirk is on Sunday). Given that we are not yet ready to go on Wolters, I've let the Lane article cut in line and nominated it for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell me something that will get me interested in Lane. I would love to be but he doesn't match Speer or Rogers. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What about his comment that has been used as a putdown of New Jersey (especially the legislature) for the better part of a century: "Nobody comes back from Trenton knowing anything more than when he went."--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You must be from New Jersey! How are you going to parley that into a main page date? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno yet, it is early days yet. Getting it through FA is gonna be a challenge because the best ref on Lane is the book of letters, with added bio detail, that his widow published after his death. And yes, I grew up in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the Woodes Rogers main page entry something that I should vote on? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent). I can't canvass, you know that. But with the short amount of time I'm giving the community, I'm really hopeful for a few support votes to convince Raul654 it is a good article to run main page and has community support. But do as you see fit. You would lend weight though, since you were the GA reviewer.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC reviews

Mattisse, I'm pleased to see you weighing in on some FAC reviews again; as several editors indicated on the RfC, your Wiki work is recognized and valued. I hope the New Year will bring positive things for you on Wiki: I welcome a fresh start with the past buried and hope you do, too. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Section at ARBCom

Hi: I think you should move your "Welfare..." section further down on the page. Now it appears under proposals by PMAnderson. It is a mess to navigate around the page, but you can probably make it. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. I am trying to figure out how to do that. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you, as well as providing some blank templates for other proposals (findings of fact, remedies and enforcement). You'll find it at Proposals by Mattisse at the Workshop page. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I just added another proposal. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

VR 04

I've fixed the problem.--WillC 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Looks good. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for passing it. Now TNA's first PPV is a GA. :)--WillC 09:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Unbreakable (film) GA review

I think I fixed your concerns, but you should check to see if I did it the proper way, or if the article needs more improvement. Thanks for the review. Wildroot (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is now GA. Good work. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Mysore

Because I thought that demonstrating that it had little factual value and was not in English would be enough. Let me know when a new FARC is filed.

Btw, do you realize that "Lightbot" doesn't mean the script? although I have little confidence in it. It means User:Lightbot, a bot whose request for approval is a license to do pretty much anything, by a botmaster who now admits being the infamous Bobblewik (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki); check the block log. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am becoming less clear what is being arbitrated. Is it the behavior of "Lightbot" the editor, or "Lightbot" the bot? Or is it the issue of edit warring between factions? Or is it the issue of autoformatting of dates? Or is it the need to promote links to date pages? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lightbot is the bot; Lightmouse is the human editor. Both have user accounts (this is standard for bots); the actions of both, and much else, are being arbitrated. The evidence may be the clearest place to start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I did look at the evidence as well as the workshop proposals. That is why I ask. It focus is not clear. I would not be surprised if the Arbcom's decision has little to do with the evidence provided. (I will look through it again). —Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding Drizzt Do'Urden

At the the article's talk page there's been discussion about trying to bring it up to FA-Class. Since you reviewed if for the GA, I was wondering if you could provide any advice on how it should be improved before a nomination. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to read Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria and perhaps look through the current list of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates to get an idea of what happens there. I believe I can safely say that is is not an experience everyone finds pleasurable, so you have to be prepared. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Soul Food Taqueria

What do you mean bout the non free images? Dan56 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria? If you used copyrighted material, it must be "minimal use" and only enough to fulfill the need to illustrate. Using the front and back cover violates the Misplaced Pages's non-free content criteria policy. Remember, we had this conversation over another one of your articles? This is about Misplaced Pages avoiding copyright violation law suits. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I added an artwork section. Are they justified now? Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that just adding an "artwork section" does it. Everything in the artwork section is demonstrated by the album cover. You have to give a good reason for violating someone's copyright on a high volume site like Misplaced Pages. (Also, you have an uncited quote in that para: Kimberley Chun of the San Francisco Bay Guardian wrote "So what is a soul food taquería? Do you get a side of collard greens with your menudo?") —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

My faul

I fixed it up good. Dan56 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. I hope you do understand why Misplaced Pages must take this position. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal: "Solicit input from the general reader"

Could I suggest you make your proposal something like this:

"3a) Misplaced Pages should provide a forum or feedback page for readers who are not editors."

"3b) Misplaced Pages should solicit wider input than the few editors involved in this arbitration, regarding the issues of date formatting, as well as over- and underlinking, the usefulness of date pages, and the degree overlinking affects general readability of articles."

and place them immediately below "====Solicit input from the general reader====".

Then put "Proposed." after the "::" in "Comment by others:" and move your commentary (which at present is placed as if it were an unnumbered, nine-line proposal) after the word "Proposed".

Also it may be helpful to sign, even though it's in your section (saves scrolling up to find out who made the comment). Hope that helps. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will try to manage doing what you suggest. I have to admit being somewhat visually challenged in this kind of task and do not understand where I should be putting what. Thanks for the suggestion. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore

Please respond at Proposal. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Franklin Knight Lane

Mattisse, if you get a chance, could you look over my latest project, Franklin Knight Lane, Wilson's Interior Secretary who undeservedly only had a stub article, and that I've spent the weekend expanding? Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I will try but he doesn't sound very interesting. I'm from California and I can't get interested. Maybe you could put something in the lead to entice the reader. Why was the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir controversial? I can guess, but the article does not say. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made that clearer. But if the article doesn't grab you, then it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to reply until you're sure you meant what you said. Are you seriously saying that there are VPs of the US who are not notable? That's what you just said! I'd rather discuss that here and give you an opportunity to edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I wasn't trying to stir up trouble. I just don't think this guy is main page material unless he has a great hook, and I don't see it in the article. But as far as FA is concerned, that is not necessary for an article to be FA so I will not pursue those issues. I certainly do not want to meddle in FA and was being provocative only. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any plans to nominate this for TFA. No need to apologize, I invited you in. There are plenty of FAs that will never be featured front page. All I like to do is keep stamping out FA's, and to see SOME of them front page. I'm not greedy and people would get steamed anyway if I had too many TFA's. It's cool.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Sorry. Well, at least I stirred up some publicity for you on FAC. You can respond and expound. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I said, it's cool. No problemo. This one may not pass anyway, due to the heavy reliance on the "Letters" book. No one has ever written a bio of him, which is a pity.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Taking Tiger Mountain

Thanks for all your help! It looks like I need to learn my writing style better since my main problem seems to be copy-editing. Thanks again with the article review!! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Yes, your information is sound. Just the occasional slip up in prose style. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK and the hivemind

I now understand completely your complaints about DYK. I'm sorry if I was ever curt about it, I tried not to be. Ah well, they have lost yet another valuable contributor in that area in me. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and for contacting me to let me know. What changed your mind? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

James Dean (film) GA review

I addressed you concerns, but to be safe, you should check to see if I did the right thing. Thanks for the review(s). Wildroot (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I think it's ready. Wildroot (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I still see many of my objections still there, unaddressed, in the article. I will look again tomorrow. (By the way, I like your name!) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I think it's ready. Wildroot (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have answered on the review page. I still have reservations. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Brown Sugar (album)

I wanna expand on this article, but i'm not sure if dis a reliable, propa reference to use. MusicianGuide: D'Angelo What do u think?

Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A really good place to ask about sources is the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Usually you get some very good answers quickly (within a few hours or so). I wanted to ask you, have you ever thought about submitting one of your very best articles to WP:FAC? It can be a gruelling process, but you will learn lots about article writing. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Kouandete

From what I have seen, GA can be the "last step" for an article in which very little information is available; any article can become a GA. I will ask at WT:GAN but if there is concensus in my favor, would you mind unfailing it? ~EDDY ~ 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If others think it should pass, then you can nominate it again right away. (There is no time limit, you renominated it immediately, and the fact it failed once does not matter at all.) Then either I or someone else can pass it. It is no stigma in failing once. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Survivor Series (2007)

Thanks for the review, I believe I have addressed all your comments here.--TRUCO 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

D&D GAs

Since you reviewed Drizzt Do'Urden and Forgotten Realms, would you have any interest in Tomb of Horrors or Dwellers of the Forbidden City? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

repression of the word "terrorist"

Please see my 2 most recent comments, both of which were ec'd. I'm trying to press the point that WP:V should be the only restriction on its use. Thanks. Ling.Nut 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have already left a note on that editor's page (that removed your remark), and then I left a (snide) post on the WTA page and decided I was getting out of hand and better stop. (I was told that "bad guy" was also a forbidden word, like "terrorist". That means I should shut down and go home.) —Mattisse (Talk) 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well. I dunno about that discussion. It's all kinda full of power moves, albeit relatively minor ones. It's... hard to see it as being legitimate; it seems a POV pushing exercise ("there are no terrorists"). But whatever. ;/ Ling.Nut 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I feel like a perfectly good guideline is being ruined by POV editors. And "we" were lectured! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I am exercising my right not to care about the individuals or their responses. I can't be arsed about individual editors. But I will continue to follow the debate. Ling.Nut 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is amazing how a few editors (hopefully it is only a few who think this) can get their way by simply persisting. I'm getting depressed! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) No need to get depressed. No need to spend any time at all—not even a minute—thinking about the individual editors. Doing so is self-defeating; just rolling thoughts around in my mind that make me unhappy is... just a way to make myself unhappy. It accomplishes nothing else. So I don't let myself think those thoughts, simply by mentally labeling/dismissing them as self-defeating. Ling.Nut 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a hard lesson, here. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Hard lessons are almost always the most valuable ones—else everyone on the planet would be height-weight-proportional (I definitely am NOT; am on Day 3 of my latest commitment to jogging), healthy, non-smoking, etc etc. :-) Ling.Nut 04:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan Kotok

Mattisse, there's a note for you in the GA review for Alan Kotok. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Although I am not familiar with the subject matter of Alan Kotok article, I suspect that you have included mention of the relevant information. The problem is that the material is not rounded out. I have looked for some similar articles so that you could see by example what I mean. The best I could find was the following: Stuart Milner-Barry, Ronald Fedkiw, Otto Julius Zobel. These articles are not quite on the same subject, but they can give you an idea of what a full fledged GA article should look like. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Another note for you there. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read the note, all I can do is reiterate that I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to be more specific, so go ahead and ask for GAR, if that is what you want, as I am unable help you any more. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Louis Laybourne Smith

Hi! Thanks again for reviewing the article, and equally thanks for the copyedits. Your suggestions were great, and I think they improved the article a great deal. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! You improved the article too. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Guess so. :) But I still think the the coolest thing about WP is getting to collaborate on articles, so I really enjoy it when I get to do so - it's much more fun than writing on my own like I normally have to do. And the articles end up much better than anything I could produce. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's a great feeling! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Not only for reviewing and patiently waiting for improvements on Seeing Sounds, but for your hard work in general in WP:GAN. Thank you for the help, hard work and determination; it is deeply appreciated. DiverseMentality 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

you have a message

... and I replied at User talk:Coppertwig#"Coaching" vs controlling. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(copy)

Hi Coppertwig. As I said, my objection is to the covertness. To edit the article, or even to offer suggestions, would mean that I would have to watchlist your talk page and those with whom you covertly communicate, and I am unwilling to do that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not playing the talk page game anymore. I have made my point clear multiple times. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer

Thanks for the comments and support for the article. I gather their MO is to wind other users up to the point where they give up. Unfortunately for them, I have dealt with enough Trolls in real life, that their little game doesn't bother me. The problem that this sort of people can cause is that it scares other users from making opposite comments for fear of being attacked themselves.

Regarding the anti-Semitic aspects of the attacks made against him, the literature does seem to link the anti-German and anti-Semitic movements together to the extent that to some they were interchangeable. There appears to be some ambiguity as to his Jewishness. He was indisputably of Jewish decent, but he married in an Anglican church and when he took the oath of office of the Privy Council he initially tried to do it on the the Bible until the priggish clerk, Almeric FitzRoy, forced him to use a Jewish holy book. His children also seem to have married in Christian ceremonies. Therefore, he may have converted at some time, or he might just have been trying to fit in. I originally left out any direct reference to anti-Semitism, but, if I can find some definite examples of it applying to him, I will add something on the subject. --DavidCane (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as "being Jewish", I don't think it depends on what Bible a person swears on but on decent, as it is an ethnicity even more than it is a religion. In the U.S., there was a general prejudice toward Jews but I don't think it was overtly a part of any foreign policy and probably would not be mentioned openly or in publications. In fact, it was only after World War II had ended and the treatment of Jews in Germany became general knowledge, that the issue of Jewishness became one of open discussion in the press. I would not be surprised if the situation was similar in the UK; that is, that it was not a topic of open discussion. In WWI, Jews and Germans could well be combined in people's minds, as WWII and concentration camp, etc. had not yet happened. I think you are correct in not making it an issue in your article (unless, of course, you find evidence) because the German connection was a justification for those looking for a reason to treat Speyer as they did. It is remarkable, however, that Speyer was treated so harshly, a person who had contributed so much to the British culture ans was honored for doing so. However, his business success (in some minds connection to Judaism) perhaps increased the degree of harsh punishment to a seemingly harmless man. To me the story in the way you have presented it eloquently speaks for itself. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)/GA1

Thanks, I addressed your concerns.--TRUCO 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rootology's RfA

You voted in an RfA that had already been closed for a few hours. I did revert your edits. — Jake Wartenberg 05:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sector General

Sorry for being so argumentative! --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It is not clear to me what the heading should be! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "Challenges of inter-species medicine"? Or does that soud too much like management speak? --Philcha (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I now consider your behaviour to be so intollerable that I have commented here . Giano (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Giano, your input is always welcome and I am honored that you took the time. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's no honour. Please just don't interfere with you fatuous comments in my work, and try to follow some of the wise advice your friends are giving you. I'm sure we can co-exist here quite well, it's not as though our orbits are likely to collide - is it? Giano (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I was honored to help improve your article and I thank you for allowing me to do so. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't get the impression that you were to blame for Che Guevara being defeatured. As far as I remember, the main issues were NPOV and formatting - Coppertwig

The current RfC about you

Hi, Matisse. I've only have dealings with you at GA reviews of articles I've proposed, and I've found you very helpful and reasonable. I find the current RfC about you confusing and depressing, and hope it is closed as soon as possible.

Please do not take offence at the following comments, as they are intended to be helpful. Your tactics in actual and potential conflict situations leave you vulnerable to situations like the RfC. I would not suggest you become a pacifist - that would be hypocritical, as I'm no pacifist myself, in fact if I see what I consider wiki-bullying or disruptive behaviour I want to stop it instantly. Some tactics you may consider useful:

• WP:DNFT. Unfortunately a few editors like upsetting people - don't give them the satisfaction they crave.
• Stick to the facts about the article - not which editor said what, but what the sources say.
• Check whether other editors have simply expressed themselves less carefully than they would in articles. I know I'm often guilty of that, and perhaps I'm lucky that no-one has taken serious offence. See next item ...
• If there are ambiguities in either article text or a comment, try to find a way to turn it into a joke. For example Talk:Howard_Staunton/GA1 nearly turned into an edit war (I suspect the reviewer passed the article out of exhaustion), but SyG (an excellent diplomat) created thread Talk:Howard_Staunton/GA1#Summary_of_sources_on_the_personality_of_Staunton which acted as a safety valve, and I started Talk:Howard_Staunton#A_bit_of_fun which also helped defuse the situation. As a result of that, my opponent and I still have very different views of Howard Staunton, but we work together happily and have quite a lot of fun doing so - even on Howard Staunton! What made both of the safety-valves work was that they were not attempts at witticsms but invitations to others to have some fun.
• If you suspect someone of POV-pushing, disruption, etc., stick to summarising the sources, including all sides of a debate betwwen sources, for a couple of exchanges. When I do this, I'm not being nice or turning the other cheek - I'm giving possible trouble-makers more opportunities to expose their own mischief.
• After all this, if you think it is appropriate to try to stop someone in their tracks:
  • Check the facts first.
  • Make sure your response is entirely supported by the facts. Give "refs" in the form of e.g. timestamps of posts in the same thread or diffs from elsewhere.
  • Be concise. No long emotional rants. My best stopper so far, to someone who accused another editor of being uncivil and having "your head up your arse", was Physician heal thyself. You can even be ostentatiously civil in the manner of a Jane Austen novel, e.g. "How many citations from the last 3 years would it take to convince you that ...?"
  • When you do counter-attack, hit hard. I remember an article on negotiating techiques that said experienced negotiators don't attack often, but they when they do, it's swift and fierce. (Did I mention that I'm no pacifist?)
  • Check your text for ambiguities and for grammar and spelling, to avoid giving opponents an opportunity to confuse the issue.
  • Be concise and avoid emotional rants - yes, I know I'm repeating this. Check your words before you click "Save".
• If you think someone is harassing you persistently, assemble the evidence (mainy diffs) offline, not on a WP page that someone may be watching or can trace via your contribs. For each item, add the date and a summary of the main points.
• Don't be in a hurry to try out these "combat" techniques - aim for 20 "fun" ways of handling disagreements before you go into combat, and keep the fun:combat ratio at least 20:1. If you know you can kick the crap out of trouble-makers, you may find it less often necessary to do so.

Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. I will read through it carefully and seek to profit from it. I very much appreciate the fact that you took the time of yourself to give to me. Please, please do not let the RFC depress you. It is very one sided and a distorted version of events. Please judge for yourself, based my behavior that you see and not what others say. And I urge you to feel free to let me know if you think I am behaving badly or if you have a suggestion as to how I could have improved the way I handled a situation. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New Bedford HD

I responded to your GA review. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will take a look. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Please calm down

Mattisse, I have not said a remotely negative word about you in more than 6 months, and have been more than courteous to you despite our turbulent past. I have gone out of my way to twice unilaterally apologize to you (something you still have yet to ever return), extend my hand in friendship to you, and send you encouragement during your difficult recent RfC tribulations. I purposely chose not to be a part of your RfC because I remained optimistic that you would realize that your abrasive actions, only stain the many valuable things you bring to Misplaced Pages. User:Coppertwig for his/her part has gone even further than I have and continually always deals with you in a respectful manner. Still you insist on casting aspersions against us as some "courteous cabal" who secretly works together in unison to be as friendly to others as we possibly can. You find our commitment (and Copper's advice to me) on civility to be a threat for some reason, and interpret it as a sinister plot to push POV, or prevent you from editing an article -Che Guevara-, that Coppertwig has repeatedly invited you to collaborate with us on. Now out of the blue you begin with a unprovoked attack against myself and Copper 1. I removed this for your own good. Because I believe you are a good person, and I know that you sometimes let your emotions get the best of you (as I also do). Luckily, I have Copper to remind me when I slip up and get frustrated, however you lack such a safety net, and it unfortunately results in you sporadically showing your anger in situations as mentioned in the RfC. I am not sure what I need to say to implore you to not blemish your full Wiki potential with these continued episodes. The last thing I want is to have you as an enemy, or to see you attacked for your behavior ... however you make this commitment to civility very difficult with such actions as your recent decision to turn an article's talk page into a WP:Forum to voice your concerns against me and Copper. I will revert this one more time, in the hopes that you will let it be, and take some time to cool off. You and I both know that the result of this will only be more frustration for both of us, and that it will distract us both from our more meaningful tasks of editing articles. Please, take this message to heart and learn to let things go. You literally just posted that you "can't breathe" because you are so frustrated that Copper and myself (do the basic task) of responding to messages on the talk page of Che Guevara. There is no reason for you to get yourself so worked up about nothing. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I thank you for your very kind response. I have no problem with you, as you are up front and I understand that you are passionate about the subject matter. What I do not like is the collusion that is not up front. All that I ask, is for the liasions between editors be disclosed and transparent to the editors attempting to edit the article, rather than being covert. I believe a dispassionate glance at the article history tells the story. Do you not wonder why Polaris999 refuses to edit the article that was once so important to Polaris999? I believe that your style is overt, so I do not in any way blame you. Please understand. I am equally passionate but I have no person giving advice as to how to ensure my point of view dominates and to help me implement it. When two collude, then they can defeat honest attempts to communicate by individual editors. I feel that this is what is happening. Again, I do not think that this collusion is your style, other than the fact you delete your talk page and do not archive, so that it is extremely difficult to document this issue. Added to this, is the tendency to whisper which is very annoying to those of us who prefer outright disclosure. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Septimus Heap

Changed according to your suggestions. Please take a look. Thanks. "Legolas" (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)