Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SilkTork (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 18 January 2010 (→please explain: added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

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

Misplaced Pages:ARS/Tagged

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

DYK hook is too long

DYK hook on Mashallah Shamsolvaezin

Thanks for shortening it, it looks great! I linked to some sources about Shamsolvaezin editing newspapers, and added that fact back in. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

World War II

Hey Mattisse, I noticed you transcluded the GA review at Talk:World War II. It's actually already transcluded further up on the page, so I've undone yours. Thanks anyways though! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about that! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it turns out you also transcluded the WWII GA review at the Ulysses S. Grant talk page here. I've also undone that. Happy editing! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Beautiful Eyes GA

Hi! I didn't want to review the article, I just wanted to give my thoughts on it. Candyo32 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. Per your statement, I have removed your name as reviewer and noted on the review page that the review needs to be completed by another editor. I commented on your talk page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Illinois Tollway

I saw the review and thought that I had addressed all of the concerns. I then left a message for the reviewer on Jan 10. Please take a look let me know what you think. Racepacket (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should address the points made at Talk:Illinois State Toll Highway Authority/GA1 to clarify what has been changed. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any that you feel that I have not addressed? I have worked hard to address all of them (and also left one comment of explanation), and appreciate any feedback that you may have. Racepacket (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Crowded House GAN

See talkpage.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 21:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 Haiti earthquake

For whatever this is worth, I trust your edits to this article and am not deliberately editing over you. I'm not keeping track of who is inserting what as edits are being made too quickly. I apologize if we're conflicting. I appreciate what you are doing and I am glad we are working toward a common goal. --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative spirit on 2010 Haiti earthquake

I'm impressed by the collaborative work on this article about an unfolding disaster. However, such articles also generate stresses and frustrations. While this edit raises issues about selective use of source material, it isn't phrased in a way conducive to collaboration. In particular, the suggestion of article ownership in the last sentence is inappropriate and unhelpful in this context, as well as being contrary to your plan: I advise striking it. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. —mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If you would like any further clarifications about the spirit of good collaboration in this context, let me know. Geometry guy 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have struck all comments and I will not contribute further to the article. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why have you struck all comments? Slow down Mattisse: it is this kind of rapid over-reaction that you have to guard against. Geometry guy 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is wrong to become involved in articles. I made a mistake in doing so, but thank you for reminding me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't wrong to become involved in articles, as long as you are able to step back to see the encyclopedic perspective, and avoid personalizing disagreements. You've contributed a lot to this article and have done so primarily with the needs of the encyclopedia in mind, so you should feel good about that. If you need to step away for a bit and do other things, that is fine: you don't have to make statements about your future plans. Geometry guy 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I made many fine contributions to the article, but that was a mistake on my part and I regret that I did so. I am making an effort not to contribute in substance but I made a mistake in this situation. I hugely regret it. I hope I know better now. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You will have a better perspective to evaluate your contributions and experience in a few days. Geometry guy 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed it from my watchlist and will not follow it. It will become an unhappy memory that hopefully will fade. But it will help me not to make that mistake again. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Mattisse, best, always, not to react in anger. I quick look shows you're doing a fine job on the article and other editors appear to appreciate that. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Geometry guy reminded me how dangerous it was to comment. I am not reacting out of anger but rather out of fear. I have struck all comments. Hopefully this will put this incident to rest and it will not need to be spoken of again. I will avoid any future active involvement in articles. I am trying not to make any substantive contributions. I having no longer been doing reviews of any sort, nor participating in FAC, FAR or GAN reviews. I have not been copy editing articles as I did in the past. I did participate in DYK but I will avoid that for now. It was a mistake on my part, a lapse from my policy to get involved. Regretfully, —mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not dangerous to comment; problems arise when you act in haste. I have undone your precipitous strikes. For your own protection and that of the encyclopedia, I am banning you from editing 2010 Haiti earthquake and its talk page for 36 hours from this timestamp. I hope this will provide you time to think about the matter with more perspective. I expect you will follow this ban; you may be blocked if you do not. Thanks, Geometry guy 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I have no choice in anything, not even in withdrawing comments. I will try to be very careful not to get involved in anything else that may bring attention in the future. I am avoiding any substantive contributions and will continue to do so, so as not to bring attention. This incident was a horrible mistake. I deeply regret that I contributed so much to the article. I learn from this to avoid contributions. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You always have many choices, including the choice to wait. Geometry guy 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean that I can withdraw the comments at a future date? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Whenever you make a comment (or any contribution to Misplaced Pages) you agree in the edit window to release it under the Creative-Commons-Share-Alike and GFDL licenses. As such it cannot be withdrawn. Striking comments is typically a courtesy to other editors; it cannot be used to prevent reuse or further comment. If you want to strike comments in the future, discuss it with your advisors. Geometry guy 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So when you tell me to strike a comment, I actually cannot do that, except as a courtesy? I will remember that in the future, that I cannot strike comments at will. Could you provide documentation that comments cannot be struck? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Semantics. Of course you can strike a comment, but every edit is recorded in the edit history, including this one. Geometry guy 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I know that. So what could you mean that striking comments is a courtesy? I guess the safest route for me is to make no comments. I will resist engaging, contributing, and in any way becoming involved in an article. Meanwhile, apparently I am banned from the one article that I make substantive contributions to! Lesson learned. Do not make substantive contributions, and do not make substantive comments. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Striking comments is a courtesy because it is a widely respected form of deescalation: "I know I said that, but on reflection, I wish I hadn't". You are only banned for 36 hours (now 35) and only from a page which you said you never wanted to contribute to again, so that's no hardship. Quit complaining. Geometry guy 01:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite confusing and makes no sense to me! I will disregard the whole thing and wait the 36 hours to strike my comments. I am complaining that I cannot contribute to an article in which my contributions have been acknowledged as substantive, without getting my head chopped over. Wow, and just more wow. I am glad to learn that my contributions are not wanted on Misplaced Pages. That is very clear. It furthers my resolve to avoid any substantive contributions, as it is apparent that Misplaced Pages does not value what I do. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

please explain

I have made nothing but positive (constructive) edits to the article. Indeed, my adittions with references have straightened out may confusions. But because I was directed to strke out comments to the talk page and did so, I am banned from the article? As I have stated, I have no intention of every contributing to the article again, but what is the logic to this ban? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your actions have consequences: the ban has been logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions. You have another c. 24 hours to think about it, and how you might have acted differently. Here are some questions which might help you.

• You struck the comment I asked you to strike, and this remains struck. Do you still wish to strike your other contributions to the talk page? If so, why, and how would it help to improve the encyclopedia?
• Do you wish to contribute to the article in the future? If so, why do you repeatedly state that you will not and that contributing to the article was a "mistake"? If not, then why all the fuss?
• Where did you learn that disregarding others' comments, especially those of your advisors, was a good idea? And where did you learn that "wow and more wow" is acceptable discourse for an editor under conduct probabation?

Take your time to read and reflect before you reply. Geometry guy 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over this incident, and these are my observations.

• Mattisse has made valuable contributions to 2010 Haiti earthquake
• She has worked well and collaboratively, discussing edits on the talkpage, on a high profile article where people are sometimes undecided as how to best proceed
• It would be unusual on such an article for stress not to show, and people to sometimes lose their cool and say inappropriate things they later regret
• Matisse lost her cool and made an inappropriate statement
• Geometry guy noticed the comment and advised her to strike it
• Mattisse struck the comment, and then struck all her comments and engaged Geometry guy in a discussion about her editing, and how low she feels
• Geometry guy banned her from 2010 Haiti earthquake and related talkpage for 36 hours as Mattisse, from past experience, may escalate matters there when feeling low
• Mattisse asked for an explanation as to why she is banned from the article

I feel that Geometry guy's actions are self-explanatory. I support what Geometry guy has done, and while I understand and sympathise with Mattisse's frustration - as we are all capable of getting over-involved in an article - I feel she knows that her original comment was inappropriate, and that her later actions and comments were over-reaction, and that this is the danger zone for her. When angry and frustrated like this, the most appropriate solution is to log off and cool down. Easier said than done - but it has to be done. As the solution is to cool off, I will not engage in further discussion on this matter either here or off-line until next month. SilkTork * 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)