User talk:Mattisse/Archive 21

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_20) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_22)

Herbert Kisza

Thanks for your question. Yes, your interpretation is right, I might say in the hook Kisza is a painter. And it is true that he not only runs it but also owns it - my English is troublesome a bit. Can you suggest a new hook? Thanks a lot for help. Today I want to add some photos.--Aloysius (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And the collection is of his work as well as that of others? But the largest single artist collection in Europe in the gallery is his? Some photos would be great! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is only his work in the gallery. And I can copy a photo from his book - I even asked him if I can use scans from his book for wikipedia but I am not sure how to prove that he agreed.--Aloysius (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a letter from him agreeing, you can send it to OTRS to get an OTRS ticket. I will look more into that, as I am not sure how that is done. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have asked at the Wikipedia:Help desk what you should do to prove you have permission.[1] I will let you know what I find out. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the photographer who took the pictures in the book also has a copyright in her/his photos; possibly, so does the publisher of the book! All parties involved would have to grant permission under one of our licenses. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Violet (computer game)

In your comment about the DYK for Violet (computer game), I believe you overlooked that the article moved from user space to article space on the 8th, which I believe per D7 qualifies as new for DYK. Would you be so kind as to review your statement? Thanks for taking the time to review my nomination! — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I will. I could very well have overlooked a move from user space. My apologies. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Snyder, New York

Could you try again looking for the PDF at http://www.amherst.ny.us/pdf/planning/snyder/actionplan.pdf, the main source for DYK nomination Snyder, New York? It downloads for me (size of 4.62 MB), although it's slower than many other PDFs to download. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! I was able to look at it with no problems. I suspected that it was a temporary problem. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Eli Lilly

Hello! I have addressed your comments on the GA review for Eli Lilly. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will look. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your additional comments. Thanks :) Charles Edward (Talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Loihi

Just beep me if there are any concerns. Yep, it went through a lot of work; me and Viditras hammered at it for a full month :P I'ts nice that someone picked it up; it's been at GAN for over 2 weeks (as has my other GA, Hawaii hotspot). My goal for the article is an FA. ResMar 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FA seems like an appropriate goal. It is a very interesting and thorough article. I have been worrying about some FAC type things as I copy edit it. If there are two of you to jump in to rectify FAC objections, that is good. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad my work is appreciated! ResMar 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Macaw

I wonder if you can classify this ref as a primary source or a secondary source. It has been used on the Saint Croix Macaw article. There is some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Saint_Croix_Macaw. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Answered on Snowmanradio's talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merrill Lock No. 6

Thanks for removing the stub tag; I'd added it early in the writing stage, when I had much less information than I finished with, and forgot to remove it after expansion. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It also needs a project template on the talk page, so the talk page is not a red link. I've been trying to find one! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Another tag added. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK medal

		The DYK Medal
		For tireless verifying of hooks at Template talk:Did you know, I hereby award you the DYK contributors medal for outstanding contributions to the running of the DYK project. Congratulations! Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I know Bencherlite gave you a barnstar for this a couple of weeks ago, but I've been so impressed by your work ethic at T:TDYK over the last few weeks that I think you should have one of these. I know how much work there can be in verifiying hooks so I really think you have earned it! Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing – thanks a lot for your continuous work helping with this backlog right now. Getting hooks moved off T:TDYK and into updates can be the easiest task (heck, I'm doing that right now, although it does need to be done). But verifying and commenting is the thankless, tiring job that really keeps DYK going. We really appreciate it. :) Jamie^☆S93 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel very rewarded. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Electrik Red DYK

Hey there. Could you please read my response at the nom. page? Thanks. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey again. Please check back, because hopefully the problem has been solved. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help; it's much appreciated (and you certainly deserve that barnstar above!). :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome! And thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

vandalism and welcoming new users

You're an experienced editor. You must know that vandalism ONLY refers to edits that are wilfully destructive. An editor who is making an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, no matter how badly they do it, is not a vandal, and MUST NOT be called a vandal. With that in mind do you want to reconsider your unfriendly welcome to 207.6.206.218? New editors are unlikely to realise that trigger happy editors who don't check the output of their scripts are slapping inappropriate templated warnings everywhere. Maybe it's too late? Maybe that IP editor is gone, and will never make any edits again. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'm very willing never to leave another warning. I only do it out of a sense of duty, but I will stop. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK

I just wanted to point out that the purpose of my DYK query was to find out what the community thought plus see what they expected out of the articles - what would the expansion be, what pages would need it, how would it be divided, etc. It is a problem with old articles that combined multiple notable subjects without giving them their own separate pages. I am not concerned with the specific amount, but I do want people to come to a general agreement on whatever so I know how to proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm just an old timer who remembers the days when DYK was more informal and when there were not so many editors seriously racking up points. Nothing depends on what I think. It seems that the general DYK community of tolerant of the increasing DYK complexity and the "advertising" use of DYK by experienced editors, so that is what is important. I am just one editor. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I've been around DYK for a long time. I put it on the talk page because I don't "rack up points" and that I just want things to go through without having the problems that happened back in November when the community decision wasn't clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Another for your collection

		The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar
		In addition to your helpful reviews of "my" articles, you're one of 3 reviewers whose approach encouraged me to submit more articles for GA review and to review articles myself. This award is long overdue, it's taken me a while to find the right Barnstar. --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A big thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkers speech

I've finished construction work and nommed for GA. I'll continue to polish it, but I think it is turning out really well, better than I expected. The thing is, it is an unusual structure and some may think it overdetailed, but as we are dealing with, in effect, a ten day period, I think a detailed article is needed to assure the reader understands the intricacies of what went on; it is a coherent story and is an important article, everyone from then on saw Nixon through the filter of the speech, for good or bad. I have Nixon's book, Six Crises, in which he discusses the Fund crisis in detail, on order.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would wade in and review it, except without the discipline of FAC you will disregard all my suggestions! (I know this from experience.) I see big things right away that are wrong with the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to revert you on word choice more than anything else, sometimes I include a word for a very specific reason and you aren't aware of this (how could you be) and you replace with a synonym. I don't think we tend to disagree on "big picture" items. Why don't you tell me what the major problems you see are here, and then we can go on from there?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For one, the use of all caps is strictly forbidden by MoS. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've decapitated that. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• " ... discussions between his campaign staff and his longtime California backers resulted in a privately-run fund ...". Are you saying that Nixon did not know about this, had no input etc.? Weaselly. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good point. I've consulted the Morris book and made it clearer. Of course, Nixon had to know, he cashed the checks from the Fund, didn't he?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• "The furor grew tremendously ..." Not encyclopedia wording. Saying, "The furor grew" would be enough.
• "overwhelming outpouring of public support ..." outpouring is enough - don't need "overwhelming"

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree with you on the second one. On the first, we need some verbiage that this crisis came out of nowhere and endangered Nixon's place on the ticket within 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is enough for a politician to have a "furor" grow. The word "tremendously" is not professional and is not encyclopedic. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased to get rid of the furor. Reading Six Crises, the part about the Fund Crisis, as we speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Six Crises isn't going to help your POV. What about "with a huge majority in favor of the senator." This is POV in the lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Probably not, and I'm very cautious about how I use it. OK, how do YOU think I should characterize 75 to 1 in favor except as "huge majority"? Incidently, while the POV is arguable, I do call Nixon "disgraced president" later in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• The great thing about NPOV is that you don't "editorialize" with adjectives. Perhaps reading Wikipedia:WTA will help. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm bored with Checkers speech, moving on to look for next project. I think you are right, Checkers speech will inevitably get lost in POV battles. I think Matthew Boulton would be fun, and I just read an article on him. Have to order a book. New one coming out on him in July.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Humm, where do you find these people? What will the "hook" be with him? (And what book are you getting?) —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just read an article on him. The hook? Coins, his connection with James Watt, who knows? He'll beat the hell out of Calif. politicians. And I think he will be found to be interesting. There's a new book out in July, run his name as a search on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: '76

Thanks for the reference assistance. I surely do appreciate it. I was kinda goaded into writing the article, which took about 3-4 hours to write-n'-cite. I would have converted them eventually, but I figured that having it come up as a DYK would bring a lot of hands to the article. mooting the necessity. Thanks for the help, though! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting little article, and the first one I have seen to use podcasts! Glad to do it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite

After a quick skim through, I think the only section that might be over-laudatory is "critical reception", and that depends on what the sources say and whether the article omits reviews that were less positive or contained criticisms among the praise. The material about the concept naturally contains a lot of the creator's views, that's inevitable. The description of the production includes conflicts with the record company and Maxwell's contributions to these. If I were reviewing, I'd look at the cited reviews and Google to see if there are others. If that research finds no less positive notes, then I think the tone is acceptable. --Philcha (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. I like the editor's writing and have passed his work before. So I am happy to get this go ahead! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Pronouns

May I ask are you a male or female yourself? I'm a she. Your name gives nothing away to me. The "isse" at the end sounds like something at the end of the name of many African American women.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my sex is important as I don't think it describes much about me. My name is actually French, like the painter Matisse. Regardless, I am willing to help you with the article if you wish. Look at my user page and see all the awards I have gotten for copy editing! I have no strong feelings about the term in question in your article. I think the issues you bring up in the article are intriguing. I am sure we can resolve the psychology problem by noting that the field is multidisciplinary. Some psychologists play a role, but because the issues involve endocrine and other biological/medical issues, most of the primary theorists are not psychologists. I am really not trying to give you a hard time, so I hope you do not see me as an antagonist. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked because you called me he. French name, that makes sense. The African American's I was thinking of all have roots in Loisiana Arkansas and Missouri... those places still have strong French influence.

I don't take the subject of that or any other article personally. So I never felt you were hostile to me. It is others (jokestress and a couple others) who take this personally. I could care less what diagnostic categories psychologist/psychiatrist/botanist use.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I'm glad that you did not feel I was hostile, as I certainly did not mean to be. I've been reading some articles today, and I think the issues you are trying to discuss in the article are interesting and complex. It seems that there is not much agreement about anything in the field. I think the suggestion of discussing the "concept" is a good one. Discuss the general idea of categories, nuances in categories and degrees, while acknowledging the lack of agreement. The fact that certain groups don't like the name is relevant only to a degree to professionals. It deserves a place in the article, but should not be the determining factor, in my opinion. Lots of groups don't like the categories that professionals put them in. But professionals have to use categories in an attempt to understand. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your kind words about DYK. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LifeStroke

Ooh, thanks for your suggestion. I just woke up lol. I asked LS if s/he was interested in being adopted by me, then I looked on ANI and saw others had already said they would do it. So they have plenty of people willing to lend them a hand now.:) Sticky Parkin 12:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You might still keep an eye on LS, as that person seems to get things wrong, although at other times sounds perfectly reasonable. Thanks for looking into it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK medals

Who hands out the DYK medals? I should have 26 credits by now, one as a nominator and 25 as a writer/expander.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Why are you not on this list: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs? For the most part, the DYK people keep track of this, but I have seen some people update their number themselves. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. I know my medals came without me doing anything. In fact, I did not even know they existed until I received them. (So you are a numbers collector, eh?) —Mattisse (Talk) 14:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 2009 Medair TC-HEK helicopter crash

Hi! Thank you very much for your contribution. Cheers.CeeGee (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

You did some major work on an article i started, Bookpeople (distributor), on the reference formatting. i am still new to this process, and did what i thought was good work, but i was vaguely aware of a higher level of reference formatting. looks like you did that. i would like to be able to properly reference an article i write, but i know that if i dont do it perfectly, if the information is still good, the article wont be deleted. i did have an article i tried to rescue deleted, which i still think was notable (i may try to introduce the material within another article that it could be a section of). its persons like you which make me much more likely to continue to contribute, and to learn more about how to best do it. thanks, and ill try to read up on referencing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It takes a while to get the hang of the referencing format. The fact that there are different formats confuses the issue. I think WP:Cite tries to explain. Wikipedia:Citation templates are helpful templates. There are also some tools that help in the formatting. Feel free to ask me questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw this while passing through. A widget called "refTools" is very helpful in formatting references, I use it all the time. See instructions in the "Tools" section of my page. --Philcha (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I use it also. It is wonderful! But you have to know about reference formatting before it makes any sense. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not a lot you need to know:

• Best to put refs after the relevant punctuation - not compulsory, but a lot of people think it is, so saves hassle.
• Use named refs if you use the same ref multiple times. The instance that defines the ref is <ref name="SomethingDistinctiveYouCanRecognise">{{cite ... }}</ref> and to re-use it <ref name="SomethingDistinctiveYouCanRecognise" /> - the / is vital. refTools even makes that easy, as it has a facility to list all the names you've assigned, so you can select it and then click "Add" - which is why you want names you can easily recognise.
• Any ref with a URL needs an accessdate, in format yyyy-mm-dd
• Page numbers are required for books or large documents. ISBNs are desirable but not compulsory - some books are pre invention of ISBN.

Now I've told you all I know about refs and I've got a few articles to GA - some passed by Mattisse! --Philcha (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I am not going to go through that explanation with an editor who is learning to write articles. I just formatted the 23+ or so references in his article. I think he is learning from that. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

NARTH

Hi, Matisse, I noticed that you recently added the pseudoscience category to the NARTH article. I agree personally that the conversion therapy that NARTH advocates is pseudoscience. However, I still see problems with your edit. As I understand it, the pseudoscience category can only be used if there is general agreement in the scientific community that a topic is pseudoscience, and I don't believe that this is the case here. The NARTH article states that conversion therapy is "identified by mainstream mental health organizations as a pseudoscience", however, as far as I can make out, this statement is based on a misinterpreted source, which doesn't actually contain it. There is a discussion about this on the talk page, and I would appreciate it if you could take a look at it and make some comment. I don't want to edit the NARTH article at the moment, let alone get involved in an edit war, but ultimately this edit will have to be reverted if it cannot be justified. Born Gay (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about the category. If reliable sources can justify its inclusion as an accepted therapy, that is fine wuth me. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I would personally very much like to see the pseudoscience category used, but only if that can be justified in terms of Wikipedia's policies. At the moment, I don't think that reliable sources indicate that the mainstream view is that conversion therapy is a pseudoscience (I wish that WERE the mainstream view, but currently it may not be). I think that, if you wanted to add the pseudoscience category, it would have been better to have added it to the conversion therapy article first, not to the NARTH article. Starting a discussion about this on the conversion therapy talk page would have been the ideal approach, before making changes to any of the articles. Born Gay (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience has a definition. If Conversion therapy presents itself as a legitimate therapy or psychotherapy, and there is no scientific consensus that it is effective, then it is a pseudoscience or a fringe science. My goal is to make sure that therapies that are pseudoscience or fringe science do not get included in Category:Psychotherapy.

Would you take a look at Homosexual transsexual, where there is an argument going on about what the article contents should be, and give an opinion? It seems as if personal points of view are being injected into the article content. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I know next to nothing about trans issues, so I don't think I can say anything helpful there. I have replied to your comments about pseudoscience on the NARTH talk page. Born Gay (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cookiespam

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Street newspaper was just promoted, and I owe a lot to editors like you, Awadewit, Jappalang, and others who helped with both copyediting and content suggestions. Thank you for all the help, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty), and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Nlu (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC) --Nlu (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

LED displays are not the same as LCD displays

Hello

You have changed the category of a few articles related to LEDs from "Display technology" to "Liquid crystal displays". LEDs are not related to LCD other than that they are sometimes used for backlighting. Would you explain you edits or revert them? Regards Thorseth (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I will revert them if you want. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be allright, Thanks --Thorseth (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Critique

Hi there! Would you like to offer a broad critique of History of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760), which I've been ignoring lately. You can do so on the article talk page. A paragraph or two. Not the details, but the big picture. I'm hoping it will inspire me to get my ass in gear and attend to the article, add the footnotes etc. I mean I haven't even copyedited it in a long time. Shameful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It is good to hear from you. I will try to offer a critique. I am suffering from Wiki-malaise, so it means I will have to get my ass in gear also, as I have not been doing anything Wiki-constructive lately. It means I have to Wiki-think! Will do my best. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Store Norske Leksikon

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Decltype's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SNL "seal of quality": [2].

One good turn ...

In return for Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite, would you have time to look over the prose quality at Field lacrosse? --Philcha (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Answered on Philcha's talkpage. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind copy-editing, I'd be grateful. Otherwise I was on the point of failing the article on prose quality, despite its other virtues, because IMO the amount of help it needs is more than a reviewer ought to provide, in terms of objectivity. The editor is a nice guy, and knows the game, but has a tin ear for prose. If you do, give it a couple of days, as there are a couple of factual items that need to be clarified. --Philcha (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Let me know when. Also, make sure it is all right with the editor. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a good time. --Philcha (talk) 06:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you done all the copyediting you intend to do on Field lacrosse? --Philcha (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been off wiki for the last day or two and have fallen behind. Give me a little time and I can go through it today or tomorrow. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thaks, real life^sigh sometimes messes up my schedule too. --Philcha (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Matisse, I want to drop you a note thanking you for your copy-edits and comments regarding the Field lacrosse article. I have always noticed your work around wikipedia and appreciate your efforts. Thanks again, Mitico (talk) 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Your thanks is much appreciated. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sexual identity therapy

Hi, Mattisse, I noticed that you added the conversion therapy category to the Sexual Identity Therapy article. I'm not sure that the category applies there. I left a comment about that on the article's talk page. Born Gay (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you think is OK with me. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice comment on my user page

Hi Mattisse,

Thanks for your nice comment on my user page, some time ago. I removed it, solely because the user page wasn't the location where I wanted to discuss things. But I appreciate your comment! Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ling.Nut.Public. It was extraordinarily beautiful, touching. Hope you are doing OK as a Public entity, and I miss your more frequent presence. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Li Yong (Tang Dynasty). For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

2009 WWE Draft

Hi Mattisse, you've helped me in the past, and I was wondering whether you could copyedit the above article? Thanks.--Truco 21:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can go through the article. I have been mostly off line and it may take me a little time to catch up. I will go through it in the next day or two. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking the time to do so! I really appreciate it, I just did a few fixes.--Truco 01:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Mattisse's Day!

Mattisse has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Mattisse's Day! For your enviable WP:GA and WP:DYK work, enjoy being the star of the day, dear Mattisse! Signed, Dylan (chat, work, ping, sign)

For a userbox you can put on your userpage, please see User:Dylan620/Today/Happy Me Day!.

--Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 00:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I am truly honored and it is very kind of you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  Hey, sorry I missed it! (I has a similar award on 21st, funnily enough!) Many thanks for adding your own encouraging words for DV. Geometry guy 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

War of Laws DYK

I can understand how it wouldn't be a reliable source, sorry about that.

Would it also follow that the sources from the source (The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Ronald Grigor Suny, Stanford University Press, 1993, ISBN 0804722471) are unreliable as well? Or can it be used as a substitute? Silverseren^C 23:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/soviet-union/history.html is also unreliable. But the others look good, so hopefully you can replace the sources. The article is interesting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, I suppose i'll just replace them. It'll take a sec. Does that clear any other issues with the article?

Update: Thanks for the footnotes. I am...notoriously horrible at making them. I rely on the Wikifey to do it. ...hmm...*frowns* I cannot find the references that source used for its information... Silverseren^C 23:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, try to reference as much as you can in the article. If necessary, you can use a different hook with information that is referenced. (There are tools you can use to help format references, if you are interested. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since there is now a reference for the hook and the only issue is with another reference that has nothing to do with the hook and, thus, nothing to do with the nomination...are we good for now? I'm going to see what I can do to fix that one source, but the nomination should be able to go on while i'm doing it. (And, yeah, i'd be interested. :) ) Silverseren^C 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you should get rid of http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/soviet-union/history.html, as it says it gets its info from wikipedia. I will look again at the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. I should be able to find a reference for that info somewhere...Silverseren^C 00:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Great! It is a really interesting articles, as I did not know how all that happened before. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what researching a red link can do for you. :P I got a little more with another reference, but nothing to cover that paragraph and a half. It looks like it might need a couple of references strung together, since there's unlikely to be one reference that has all the information in it. Silverseren^C 01:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Mars Attacks! GA review

Thanks for reviewing, sorry if I was acting strange earlier. I might have just been having a bad day. Anyway, I addressed your concerns for Mars Attacks! Good day. Wildroot (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Your article passed GA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

you can help!

Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here or via my talk. It's for a project I have to do involving wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing if the information remains confidential and at no point is released in any way that can be identified with me. Your project sounds like it could be quite interesting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The project is basically a wiki version of "stages of seperation", as it were, mapping top contributors to a random featured article and then following each editor's top three edited articles and that article's contributions in turn. The location of each editor is just a minor bit of additional info I thought would be interesting to throw together (along with the number of edits to pages, article status/class, et al.) In terms of privacy, I would be putting your location next to your username, but I'm not planning on exhibiting the project in any wide way (it's my final project for an art school project and a dozen people would be critiquing it, and that's about it.) If that's still too much exposure, I understand perfectly. (If you're interested, I started with Bone Wars -> User:Firsfron -> Stegosaurus -> User:Casliber ->Major depressive disorder -> you.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a really neat idea, David. I hope everyone can get involved. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix FA and TFA

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to featured article status.

This user helped promote Saxbe fix to the main page as Today's Featured Article on 6 March 2009.

I am recognizing you for being one of the many people who came together to improve Saxbe fix as part of its development which has resulted in its WP:FA and WP:TFA status.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You are very kind! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Another shiny medal

		The DYK Medal
		For going beyond verification of hooks by copyediting, fixing, and adjusting nominated articles. Your work is appreciated. Synergy 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I enjoy doing it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cotton Press (Tarboro, North Carolina)

• The second reference of this article (McDonald under the section "Exterior Features of Note") says "mules." I wrote oxen was possible in the article because another source mentioned mules or oxen. I will have to go back to see which one. Is the issue the "mules or oxen?" Or is it that you question "mules?" If it is the first possibility, I will check which one said oxen. I can always change the hook to "animal-powered." KudzuVine (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• I will look at it again. All I care about is that the hook is correctly referenced. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I rewrote the article to say "mules and oxen" The current reference 2 says "mules" and references 4 & 6 say "mules and oxen." I first wrote "mules or oxen" in the Tarboro article because I personally don't think that they were used at the same time, but this is a personal opinion. In case this does not solve it, a alternate hook is:
• ALT1... that the cotton press (pictured) near Latta, South Carolina, and another in Tarboro, North Carolina, are antebellum, animal-powered, handmade wooden presses? Thanks KudzuVine (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• OK! Put that ALT1 where the nomination is. Looks good. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have made the change. Thanks KudzuVine (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I fixed broken links. Mules are referenced in reference 3 (inventory form) of the Cotton Press (Latta, South Carolina) article under significance.

Homosexual transsexual

Thanks again for your work on that article. Hfarmer and WhatamIdoing have equal levels of capability as scientists (and equally high "IQ" according to their user pages), which can make it a challenge to explain to them why this specific term needs to be distinguished from the phenomenon it attempts to describe. Their training and abilities make them see the world in a very specific and similar way. I recommend checking out Ellen Feder's analysis here. Kenneth Zucker has been a driving force behind the shift in the DSM from homosexuality to gender identity disorder (especially gender identity disorder in children). He is the leading voice of reparative therapy of gender-variant youth and currently chairs the DSM-V group revising this category. They appear to be heading toward advocating trans subsets of homosexual and paraphilic-- we'll know more after the APA meeting in SF next month. Don't get me started on the point that homosexuality used to be classified as a paraphilia... I need to take a breather from trying to explain to them what's going on here, so I appreciate your efforts! Jokestress (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

• Thanks for the kind words! For one thing, I have been battling burnout for a long time. Second, and at least as important, I need to try to publish stuff, to help secure my career in the long-run. I.. may never be back as a heavy-hitting contributor. Or I may. I dunno. But either way, I appreciate your comments. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• I hope you come back, as you are a true spirit. I hate it that you do not have access to English libraries. I worry about you now. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Worry? <blink, blink>. Absolutely no need for that... but thanks for the thought. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. I don't want to worry. There is a dysphoric tone that perhaps I read into your words. I am glad to hear that I am wrong! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for copyediting the article! It needed a brushup. Punkmorten (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations

Hi there. I am hoping to draw on your experience and views re GAs: if you have a moment, can you glance at a question I have raised at the above talk page, relating to a review I am commencing of California Proposition 8 (2008)? I will also ask a couple of other experienced editors whom I know to take a look at the same thing. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK source question

AT this entry for DYK I asked if the site Allmusic was a reliable source, since it seems like a blog to me. The user said it was "hardly" a blog. Since I'm not such a referencing person, but you seem to be experienced in that field, what is your opinion? Ceranthor 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not a blog. It is a reliable source for much infomation. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Samir

Hi Mattisse, Its been long since we last communicated. Could you please see the Death and Adjustment Hypotheses article and possibly participate in the discussion for its deletion! I need vigorous discussion to make it a good article. But I think there is not enough open discussion. Samir Shoovrow (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Samir, it looks like the article has already been deleted. I think the problem is that the article would have to be on a general subject, such as "Death and adjustment hypotheses" in which the theories of many individuals would be discussed. Wikipedia doesn't support a discussion of one person's theory in an article, unless that theory has received scientific support of others. Generally, articles on specific books are supported only if the book has received significant press coverage. Wikipedia has become stricter in this regard. Sincerely, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mattisse, The article is still there. Please click Death and Adjustment Hypotheses, you will find very established references this time and see if you want to participate in deletion discussion. SamirShoovrow (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article cannot be kept per the wikipedia rules. It is your original hypothesis, and unless you can show that it is generally accept by notable people in the field, it falls under WP:OR. I am sorry. Even if I weighed in, it would do no good. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but as a good friend I must mention to you that this theory has been reviewed twice by the highest peer reviewed journal on death and now even McGraw-Hill company's text material sites about the theory. Ain't it enough to be a reliable topic for public reading? Anyway, I believe you have already seen the references and I respect your opinion as always!! Samir Shoovrow (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Hi Mattisse, re [3] – you were present at the time I had my spat with Voxpopulis. Did you think his complaint, cited in the linked proposal, was justified? I thought I had refuted it on the evidence page. Best, Jayen466 09:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember you from Idries Shah and Scientology in Germany and always found you a reasonable and accommodating editor, and not prone to edit warring. When I look at the arbitration over Scientology (the third no less), it is 99.99% about incidents that I know nothing about. What is the proposal in the link that you are referring to? I don't see Voxpopulis mentioned there, other than as a single purpose accout. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Two of the diffs Roger cites (the third and fourth, currently numbered 56 and 57) lead to evidence sections by other editors that concern my behaviour in connection with the Scientology in Germany article. The latter one of those is by Voxpopulis. It cites a single diff. I am just writing a response to post on the Proposed decision talk page. Jayen466 18:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucy II

Mattisse, if we took Lucy to GAN, would you be interested in doing the honours. I feel confident you would give a vigerous, insightful but fair review, though if you are caught up with other committments I perfectly understand. Wiki is like that. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although only my undergraduate degree was in English. Fowler&Fowler knows more about the subject matter. I would be looking at the copy editing aspect. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Solar urticaria

Thank you for the GA review. I will do my best to address the issues you have outlined, but the edits may be slightly spaced out this week because I have the AP bio exam on Monday. However, I will try to work on the article. Once again, thank you. NYYfan1 (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's OK and long as I know you are working on it. The time limit is flexible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Please do not link to copyrighted works, as you did here [4]. Please take a moment to read WP:COPYLINKS. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Reading it is an eyeful though. Probably you do not want readers of the article to see the actual book. I was shocked reading it, as the article give no clue as to the nature of the writing in it. It is unlike the wonderful writing of Naked Lunch, for example. It shows how tilted and misleading the article on the book is. I don't think anyone who wrote the article actually read the book. I am not pro Scientology but Geometry guy has shown me the POV that exists on Wikipedia regarding it. I consider the article on this book extremely POV. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably you do not want readers of the article to see the actual book. Please WP:AGF. Comments like this are uncalled for. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Please accept my apologies. I believe that most people reading the book would realize how misleading the article is. However, I will assume WP:AGF and accept that you are unaware of how at variance the books content and style of writing are with the picture of the book presented by the article. I am willing to accept that you are innocently acting in good faith. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎

Hello, Mattisse. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

New info on Chotiner

I laid my hands on Evans' and Novak's book. It contains some fascinating information on how Nixon screwed over Chotiner in the early days of his administration.The first three paragraphs. Wow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your post

Noticed this.[5] A followup at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/Ali's_Smile:_Naked_Scientology/archive1 is relevant: the quote you have been citing is taken out of context, and was provided without a relevant disclosure. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! (I am afraid I don't know quite what you are referring to, but thanks anyway.) I am being overwhelmed with admins entering into my affairs to day. I believe you are the third in the last hour. Jennevica, Flonight, you. I may be forgetting someone. There must be a network alerting admins to comment to me! Who will be next??!! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Disgraced former admin, actually. The lowly sort who drags her knuckles and grunts out commentary in between submitting featured picture nominations. Really, your work on the content side is superb. If you'd slow down please and discuss the availability of reliable reception sources at the peer review that started this dispute, all of this will probably come to a very simple and congenial resolution. The best of us have seen red on occasion; I'm no exception either. Most fellow editors would far rather see this come to a productive end. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not possible. I cannot comment there any more, nor on the article talk page. I tried there and got nowhere. I was outnumbered by at least five to one. And now they are all coming out of the woodwork, defending the article. I asked one editor his opinion for the GAR and that was posted as if I were canvasing. The GAR was closed down by Jennevica who removed it from the talk page. This is a nasty business. If I criticize the article, I am accused of bad faith. An AN/I thread was opened because I dared to take a stance in the peer review. MY RFC was brought up and discussed. It is not worth ever saying anything about the FAC editor's articles, no matter what. I should know that by now. If I am driven off Wikipedia, it will be a blessing. It is too dangerous to do GA reviews. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice

For your own sake, you need to cool it. Read a book, watch a vid, or even review an article that's actually good. --Philcha (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't like me posting on your talk page, and so for that I apologise in advance, but please do take Philcha's good advice to heart. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. Long time, no talk. Hang in there. It might be a good idea to take a break and get some perspective. I want to tell you that I appreciate the good work you've done here and I'm looking forward to more of it. BTW, today I found a new book about humpback whales in Hawaii. I'm going to add it to the article about the sanctuary. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page

Sorry about that. Obviously it wasn't intentional, I couldn't do that if I tried.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stacks of evidence

Durova on ??

Torment

Section blanked to page history

See comment below regarding the blanking of this section. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mattisse and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Mattisse, I've opened this primarily in response to the most recent ANI thread. I know that, in your opinion, your actions are reasonable and the other editors are biased against you. I hope that the arbitration hearing can determine whether that is in fact the case - perhaps my own behavior or that of others needs to be modified and we just haven't realized it. This is by no means an attempt to drive you from Wikipedia or get you banned, just to clear up the misunderstanding on whether there is a problem. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is fine if that is your feeling. I will not defend myself. I don't have the stomach for it. Whatever happens, I will cut back my editing according. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for Treating Wikipedia as a battleground (see more detailed rationale). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Closedmouth (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We're done here.--Tznkai (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I know that I am not wanted here. I would prefer to have the option of entering comments into the Arbitration against me, but that is not necessary. Thank you for ending my misery. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Make your comments here, and I'm sure an Arbitration Committee clerk will be happy to transcribe them for you.--Tznkai (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a fuller rationale than "We're done here".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Linked above.--Tznkai (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wehwalt. I have no horse in this race – AFAIK I've never had the slightest interaction with Mattisse other than seeing the occasional comment of hers on talkpages, and am only here in the first place to see what all the fuss is about – but "we're done here" with a link to your own statement at Arbcom seems very dubious grounds for an indefblock, especially when Arbcom's already considering her case. – iridescent 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I object to the indef, I think it was a bit too drastic and should be reduced. I also object to the blocking admins "we're done here" and he isn't even an uninvolved admin! Synergy 22:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully agreeing with the suggestions to unblock. Tznkai, I have little expectation other than further accusations from Mattisse's return. Yet if it's possible to to earn back her good faith while agreeing to disagree respectfully I intend to do so. Durova^Charge! 22:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I suggest you unblock Mattise or let another admin do it in order for her to be able to defend herself in case the case is accepted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure.--Tznkai (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I came to Matisse's talk page to politely ask her if she would reconsider and make a statement at the request for arbitration, but I found that you had blocked her. I would still like to ask Matisse to make a statement, or nominate someone to defend her at the arbitration case, but it would be better if she were unblocked to do so. You may also want to consider adding yourself as a party to the case, so that your actions here can be examined. If there are continuing issues, those can be dealt with by injunction. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC) I see that I'm too late, again, and that Matisse has been unblocked...<shrug>

If you think it is necessary, but I think its somewhat moot now.--Tznkai (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is OK, Tznkai. I don't understand your comments about why you blocked me but, in any event, clearly the community dislikes me and does not want me here. The passion I felt for editing and contributing is the same passion that got me into trouble. I do not want to continue where I am so clearly not wanted. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I for one value you as a colleague. I would like your help in building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I sometimes don't agree with your methods of dispute resolution but I'd say it's pretty clear that a lot of people value your contributions. That's why we're here, right? Contributions. So, I urge you to participate in the ArbCom case if accepted, if for no other reason than to clearly state your intentions here and get everything out in the open. --Laser brain (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mattisse, I've seen the threads on WP:ANI and WP:RFAR about you, but I've never commented on them. I'm glad you're unblocked, and I deeply mourn your withdrawal from FAC, DYK, and GAN; you were one of the best reviewers I've ever seen, if not the best, and if I ever need help at GAN, I know who to contact. I've only had good interactions with you; I'll always remember the first. :) Please, please reconsider your withdrawal from the main content review processes – your work there is why I gave you this! :) Sincerely, Dylan620 _{Efforts · Toolbox} 22:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement at requests for arbitration

Matisse, I originally came here to ask you to make a statement at the request for arbitration. I'd still like to ask you to do that. I haven't decided whether to accept the case yet or not, and I would like to hear from you first before deciding. If you would prefer someone else to make a statement on your behalf, that might be an option, but ideally you would make a statement yourself. The other thing that needs to be resolved is the list you are making on your talk page. It is currently titled "Torment" and was titled "Plague". As Tznkai notes, it is not appropriate. Please remove that list and if you have any issues with other editors, please raise them in your statement, or at a case if it is accepted. Carcharoth (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot defend myself. That is clear. Every time I try I make it worse. My passion for editing and contributing is the same passion that gets me into trouble. It is clear that I am disliked. It is better that I leave. I do not want to continue where I am not wanted. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a decision that should be taken in the heat of the moment. If you are going to leave, please take the time to consider your options first, and talk with those you are on good terms with, and who may want you to stay. Please be aware that if you leave and then later return, that will in the long run reflect poorly on you. It is best to either make a clean break and leave permanently, or to take an extended break (weeks or months) to recharge the batteries, or to stay and participate in the case (if it is accepted). If you chose to take a break, be aware that the case may take place in your absence, or be resumed on your return (depending on what the Arbitration Committee as a whole decide). Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, just take some time to think this over. You don't have to leave. Take the rest of the day (or night) to think on this. You're a valuable editor and leaving will solve nothing. If you're truly passionate about this project, you will strive to correct any perceived mistakes. You can be fixed. Synergy 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no one I have to talk to. I have sought out help many times. I have done everything I know how to do. I know nothing else. It is very clear that I am not wanted here. Because I had sock puppets after me I have RFCs and such that are brought up every time I do something that someone dislikes. One of the links by a commentator at the Arbitration as his sole justification for being against me is from 2006, during the sock puppet problems. I cannot do anything with that sort of thing. It is hopeless. I believe that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My talk page has been a refuge, even after disagreements between us. You are still very welcome there. Geometry guy 23:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am blocked and cannot edit. I tried to post on your talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That is probably an autoblock. Someone should be able to fix it soon if enough people are watching this page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And you are welcome on my talk as well. Tznkai has been notified about the autoblock and yeah someone should take care of it in a sec. Synergy 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocked cleared. Can anyone get the devs to show users an Autoblock message instead of a standard block message or something suitably brilliant?--Tznkai (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, if you believe, for example, that you have been unfairly hounded by people who are upset that you opposed their good and featured articles, and that admins have been ineffective in dealing with the situation, you should consider staying active and making that case for yourself. The arbitrators really do bend over backwards to try and be fair to all parties to a case and to ferret out the underlying problems, as long as they have someone to point them in the right directions. Thatcher 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are still any restrictions in place, they can be lifted if you can convince the community that when your personal viewpoints overlap with improving the encyclopedia you are ready to be fair or recuse if you're not sure you can be fair. (I won't reply further tonight, so take your time to think about the issues.) Geometry guy 23:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As for some people apparently not liking you, Mattisse, sometimes you have to be able to think, Fuck them, it's their problem if they don't like me. Don't join hands with them; concentrate on the people who do value and appreciate you; I assure you there's plenty about. Jayen466 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly my view. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Matisse, I asked you above to remove the list of editors you were compiling on your talk page (in the section currently titled "Torment"). Can you please do that? As I said above, a list of grievances like that may be suitable for a case, but it is not suitable for your talk page. This was one of the reasons Tznkai blocked you. If you are going to discuss things on-wiki with other users, please remove that list first (saving it somewhere else if you must). Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As there was no further response, I've blanked the section in question. All the text is still in the page history. If you wish to raise such concerns, please do so in the appropriate venue, either at the requests for arbitration thread, or with the editors concerned, or at another venue (such as request for comments), or a subpage in your userspace. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse, as a relatively new editor who hasn't directly interacted with you, I still urge you to at least tell your side of the story. I too share a passion for copyediting and have high hopes for this project, despite the fact that bad apples can get in the way sometimes conflicts with other editors can be stressful. Editors like you make this place go 'round, and it would sad to see a contributor of so many years and over 67k+ edits to suddenly stop. The point is that your contributions to this project are noted and appreciated, and it would be true shame if you allowed the heat of the moment to pressure you into invoking your right to vanish. The Arbitration Committe will listen to all sides of the issue, and every effort will be made to look at things impartially. Don't give up now. ←Spidern→ 01:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest that you think very carefully in future about comments like "bad apples" Spidern. Take a look at the contributions of those who are listed on Mattisse's talk page in her "Plague/Torment" section. Are they all just worthless trouble-makers? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't read too deeply into what I said. I in no way support her Plague/Torment section, and I support it's removal; I was simply offering the reassurance that I've dealt with difficult editors in the past. That being said, its generally not a good idea to apply generalized labels to people, and I can see how you might get the interpretation that you did out of it--I have refactored my comment. ←Spidern→ 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. You'll understand of course that not being a mind reader I can only react to what you said, not to what you meant to say. It's so difficult to communicate in words when we don't know each other or can't see each other. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be very careful here. This is a dangerous page. I personally am afraid to remove the link Malleus put there to harm me by linking to the section Carcharoth removed for my own protection. I feel it is too dangerous for editors to comment here. Please, anyone commenting here be aware this page is watched. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you reconsider your allegation that I put a link on your talk page "to harm you". I put it there for clarification. If you found the link "harmful" than I would suggest to you that it would have been better had you not compiled that list in the first place, or removed the content yourself when you were asked to. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why else would you put it there when Carcharoth removed it for my own protection? (see above). You know you are not welcome on this page and have been asked not to post here because of your negative impact on me. What could be the explanation that you would put that link there, the very link to material that everyone in the Arbitration is using against me? I cannot imagine why you would go against an arbitrator's judgment meant to be helpful to me. Your advice is not advice I trust, as I do not think you are acting in my interest. Perhaps, Malleus, you are willing to remove the link, now that you are aware of its damaging impact and the fact that an arbitrator removed it for my protection. If you remove it, I will remove my comment about its harmfulness, according to Carcharoth. You are defeating Carcharoth's intent. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You have an unfortunate habit of distorting the facts to suit your case. Carcharoth did not remove the link, (s)he removed the content on your talk page, and left a link to it. In fact I simply copied Carcharoth's link. I will say no more here now, as anything else I might add would certainly not be complimentary. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there is much stress involved in suddenly receiving so much attention; some people in the community are rightfully concerned about recent interactions with you. But I can assure you that there's nobody out to get you here, and I think that many of us are just trying to see things from your perspective. If you think that the accusations are unfounded, prove them all wrong by extending a willingness to cooperate. That way it will all pan out for the best, guaranteed. ←Spidern→ 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is tremendous stress for me. This is how some editors use that to get more "evidence" to use against me in something like an arbitration. They know how to take advantage of an emotional moment for me. That is why I caution others, that this page is dangerous as it is watched. For me, it is already too late and I am doomed. But you see how clever editors can entrap. Beware for yourself; learn from my experience. This is not a benign place populated by kind people. You can never be too careful. As I said, it is already too late for me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that one of my greatest gifts as a writer is being able to jump into other peoples' perspectives. Consider some of the things you've said that might have offended people, and read them as if from the outside, asking yourself what you were to think if you were a person at the other end. Play the devil's advocate; try to see things from other editors' standpoints. I don't think for a second that you're doomed, and maintain that a simple gesture showing that you are willing to think introspectively would do wonders for you here. ←Spidern→ 02:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that if "evidence" against you is ever posted, its effect would be gradually become completely moot by a deliberate and continued willingness to cooperate with others. The community will always give you a chance so long as you are able to display a desire to work with people in good faith. ←Spidern→ 03:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The evidence was posted against me. Few bothered to read it. Those that did weighed in on my side. The rest voted on the basis of supporting the word of favored editors. Your seem to be advocating hypocracy, which does work. However, I am not one who can engage in it. If one dares to express an unpopular view, then the same evidence, even if it is old hat, is dragged up and used to discredit current views. I believe there is not an instance where my view has been wrong, only unpopular, so a favored editor drags up the past to discredit me. That is why, unless the past is examined, I cannot operate on Wikipedia any longer. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse, sorry to hear your in the wars again, hope you can pull through you are a valuable contributor. I've not been following the case but I guess you know my general advice by now. Best --Salix (talk): 06:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks a lot for your meticulous attention to Loihi. If I could copyedit like that...*jelousy* ResMar 22:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just smilin' :)

Mattisse, CarpetCrawler has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 :) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I will try to think of someone. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk page archives

You mentioned on my talk page that you had blanked your talk page. Sometimes it is best just to clear away old discussions and make a fresh start. At some point, though, you should restore the links to your talk page archives and archive the discussions that got blanked. I personally archive everything - if you think others should be aware of previous discussions, I would archive them. I'd also like to thank you here for submitting a statement at the request for arbitration. I've now voted to accept and made a lengthy comment that I hope you and the other parties will read. At present, you and Karanacs are the only parties listed. One of the things that the arbitration committee need to decide on (after reading the other statements presented) is the scope of the case and whether any other parties need to be added. If you have any views on this, please let us know. I will ask Karanacs the same question. Carcharoth (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, perhaps it would be best, under the circumstances, if you allow someone else the privilege of suggesting to Mattisse how to manage her talk page. No offense, just my opinion. I suggest that Mattisse is feeling vulnerable right now and it is probably just best to stick to ArbCom business and leave it at that, plus make replies to whatever emails that she's indicated that she may make to you, as indicated on your talk page. Just my armchair sort of thing, you know. All the best.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Mattisse should be allowed archive her talk as she pleases. No harm; the history is easily accessable if needs be. A long term and valued contributor is going through a difficult time; echo Wehwalt's pleade for space. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I said the talk page archive links should be restored "at some point". No rush. As Ceoil says, those who want to look through the talk page history know where it is. I thought that advice about archive links would be better coming from me than from someone who might have come here later looking for the links. Addressing the other points raised:

• I am very aware that Mattisse is feeling vulnerable right now, and when she initially reacted to the filing of the arbitration request, it was me that called for a delay to give her space while she decided what to do. The following (although rather long) is intended to allay any concerns she may have about the arbitration process.
• I have suggested (on the now blanked talk page or at the RFAR) that if she feels unable to represent herself effectively at arbitration, she should ask someone else to represent her, or for others to help her represent herself.
• However, Mattisse either needs to directly ask for a delay, if needed, or go ahead with the arbitration case when it opens (unless circumstances change and reasons to reject the case arise, the case is likely to be opened soon). As Thatcher said at one point, arbitrators will listen and try to judge fairly if all sides of a situation are presented, but in order for there to be a fair and balanced presentation of the case, all parties need to engage in the case, or be encouraged and aided in presenting their case. My aim here is to keep Mattisse, or those supporting her, engaged in this arbitration process, because I do want to hear both sides of this.
• The worst outcome, from my point of view, is that Mattisse, on the advice of others (she mentioned this on my talk page), stays away and a one-sided presentation is made against her. That gives me no way to judge what has happened here. i.e. The arbitration committee are aware that Mattisse is a long-term and valued contributor, but someone (not necessarily Mattisse) still needs to present her side of things.
• I'm aware that the case itself has the potential to turn into the kind of conflicts and arguments that led to the case itself being brought (though this is true of all arbitration cases). Arbitrators and clerks can't watch the case pages all the time, but I have said that I will check the pages to try and deal with such conflicts if they develop. My advice would be to concentrate on evidence presentation, and to not directly interact with other parties giving evidence.
• As far as e-mails go (Mattisse has indicated on my talk page she would like to e-mail to answer questions I may have), it is best to keep communications between parties and arbitrators in the open, unless private matters need discussing, and even when e-mail is used, it is best to e-mail the whole arbitration committee. For routine advice on arbitration matters, it is sometimes easier to contact an arbitration clerk.

I could say a lot more about this, especially the last point about e-mail, but that is probably best left for another time. For now, I will give Mattisse (and others) space and time to consider what I've written above. Please remember that what I've written here is intended to allay any concerns Mattisse and others have about the arbitration process. I'm away for next 12 hours or so. Mattisse, please feel free to blank or archive this section after you have read what I've written here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed this and this. I should have checked there first. Apologies for that. Those diffs address at least one point I raised above. Hopefully the other points will also help reassure and aid the case to go smoothly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, to echo earlier words, you are always welcome to talk on my page. This is likely to be a stressful sling fest, and it troubles me to see content people here. You have my ear if its needed. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I value your support and open page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have always found Carcharoth to be a good guy and approachable; I think its positive that he is making such an effort to see things from you side. It might not seem so right now, but you are widely respected and valued, I hope you are able to weather this, and it does not not taint the years you have been contributing to wiki. Ive been in similar situations before, where it seemed all were calling for my head, and well its obviously difficult and upsetting.[6]. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth I have not even looked at the arbcom page, and I dont intend to. I dont need other people's openions to inform my own. Ceoil (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Loihi Seamount

I was confused too, until I saw that the FAC had been archived. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What does that mean? Does it mean it failed? I am still confused! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it failed, probably because the nomination went stale due to lack of reviews (sigh). Thanks for all your reviewing and copy-editing, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

de-merge Judicial Review

Hello, could I lure you back to a discussion that you contributed to in 2007? Thanks. Agradman (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded on article talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As soon as a consensus develops (and exams are over) I'll take a stab at it. Regards, Agradman (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Automatic hatlinks from articles to reassessments

These are completely unreliable. In my browser there is no link at all from the Ali's smile article to the reassessment. The people who implemented this fancy CSS stuff did not consult with interested editors, and made presumptions about article assessment which are not valid. The only reason I don't switch them off in my editor preferences is that I need to respond to other editor's concerns from time to time. Geometry guy 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I was wondering why it worked for Walmart! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Pseudocolus fusiformis

Hi Matisse, I saw you had signed up to review this article (for which, I am once again, very grateful), but haven't yet left any comments. I wanted to let you know that I'll be going on a 3-week wiki-leave in a week, and wanted to make sure I had sufficient time to respond to any suggestions you might have before that time. No pressure or anything, just thought it prudent to inform you of this time restriction on my end. Best wishes, Sasata (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to get around to it tomorrow. The one thing I felt was missing is any mention of Its relationship to humans. Is it eaten? Is it poisonous, etc.? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

You will probably see this soon enough regardless, but it's best if it comes from me: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. I am not angry with you. Now to be entirely fair, if there's anything you have to say regarding that evidence you are welcome to do so. Is there a misplaced diff? Has there been any failure to recognize a good faith motivation? Is something mistaken in that evidence? If there is, please supply a specific correction and I will amend the statement. Is there missed context or anything else I should know? I will wait 24 hours for a response, or until you resume editing, before proceeding to the workshop. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You have resumed editing.[7] Is there something you want to add here? Durova^Charge! 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

?[8][9] If you wish to comment upon the evidence, please do so now. This is not the sort of query that's possible to route through John Carter, since principally it asks what you were thinking. Please respond, otherwise I may surmise that you have no meaningful response. Durova^Charge! 15:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• If the query is why I reverted that edit, it is because the editor changed the spelling of the article from "Pseudologia fantastica" to "Pseudologia fantasia". I left a message on his page because I saw that there were already three from May, so I though that was a situation where a "unconstructive edit" message was warrented. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I want straight responses. There will never be a better time for you to give them to me than now. Do you have any comment or correction to make upon my evidence? Durova^Charge! 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I cannot make much sense of your evidence. There is a lot of background knowledge that you assume I have in your evidence that I don't know about. John Carter will figure it out and respond as best he can on my behalf. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing he has said so far is in another discussion (which he did not notify me existed, nor that he would reply to this query there) to quote you as saying "Durova was asking me in her post on my talk page, I believe unless I read it wrong, to comment on her Arbitration statements. As far as I know, there are no complaints related to GA posted there. And posts regarding GA on my talk page, I have answered there. I do not want to address Durova's post. I do not see the point of it, as you are already formally representing me." Now frankly I don't know what you mean by that. But I'll tell you this feels like getting the run-around.

Years ago when I was in college, the main library occasionally purchased new books where the deliveries got misaddressed to my residence. A little pile of books began collecting. They belonged to the library, but we weren't obligated to correct the mistakes that had brought them to our doorstep. One day out of the goodness of my heart I lifted 30 pounds of books and carried them across the street to the main library, where a clerk tried to dismiss me to a different office on the other end of campus as if I were her messenger. Know what I did? I declared I wasn't her servant and dropped those books with a resounding thud.

I'm offering to do you a favor here. Don't waste the offer. Durova^Charge! 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Durova, I cannot follow what you are saying to me nor determine what you want from me. I cannot understand what talking about here. If you have problems with John not notifying you about something, please take it up with him. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, you are a featured article writer. You have contributed 75 DYK articles. You are one of this website's best copyeditors. You presented competent and detailed evidence at the Zeraeph arbitration case.[10] And now you expect me to suppose all capacity for nuanced comprehension has inexplicably departed when it would do you the most good. Durova^Charge! 16:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And actually, Mattisse, I would have preferred if you hadn't restored the edit conflicted version. But I won't edit war at your user talk. This will be my final attempt to interact productively on this matter; an offer to tone down my evidence shouldn't become a new bone of contention. Durova^Charge! 17:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing content about subjects I know is completely different than trying to understand your logic or the issues you present in your evidence. I do not feel you and I understand each other at all. We are on completely different wavelengths. I don't understand where you are coming from or what your goals are regarding me. I believe to pursue this further is futile. I think it is best if we have no further contact. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I do not necessarily think that I am obliged to express my feelings to you. If you want to hear from me, you can post on the talk page of one of the ArbCom pages or elsewhere and ask. I want John Carter to relay my comments during the course of this arbitration to reduce the amount of pressure on me. I can't see how anyone would have any real cause to object to this plan. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good articles/recent

Hey Mattisse. I would just to apologise for and explain the disruption you may have noticed on WP:Good articles/recent. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems (it's still officially in trial), but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. That's the plan, anyhow, so it might be an idea to add the article to WP:GA, then wait ten minutes. If the bot hasn't added it yet, add it manually and come straight to me so I can fix the bot. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. Thanks for your patience and sorry for any disruption caused. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Lordship Lane, Haringey

I've asked User:DGG here if he has any thoughts about what, if anything, can be done to rescue this article, which currently seems to have pretty much every problem issue going. (I've involved him as he was the one who made the loudest and most reasoned defense of "minor road" articles last time the issue came up, so I thought he'd be best placed to make suggestions of how it could be kept.) As it was yourself who originally tagged it for cleanup back in 2007, you may want to comment. – iridescent 15:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about road articles at all. I have never worked on a road article and I have no suggestions regarding this one. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you are forgetting this edit? -- Brianhe (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All Mattisse did was tag it for cleanup, not edit it in any way; I've mentioned it here as a courtesy in case M has any suggestions, as there's a (belated) discussion about what form the cleanup should take. – iridescent 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pisces V

On May 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pisces V, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator 04:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Bamboo coral

On May 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bamboo coral, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

I like your science pics! Shubinator (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Institutionalization

I'm slowly starting to work on a new article, currently at User:Rjanag/Institutionalization (psychology), because our current coverage of this topic is almost nonexistent (a single part of a sentence in the main Institutionalization article; the rest of that article is unrelated)... judging by your contributions to Major depressive disorder and other articles, I presume you're someone who has experience in the mental health field and you might be interested in taking a look, making sure things are ok, etc. I will be away for about 10 days so there won't be any growth to the article for a bit, but you are welcome to look at it after I've had time to add more (or you're welcome to add content yourself, of course; I spent some time at the library today but didn't manage to find much, I think this is the kind of topic that, while anyone with any experience at all in mental healthcare is extremely aware of it, is just hard to find things written about).

And I'm sure you will want to ask me why the quote box was included...I know it's probably not very encyclopedic, but it's just so pretty I couldn't help myself. (And for now it's only in my userspace anyway, so anything goes!) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It is a subject that I have a fair amount of experience regarding. I will be happy to take a look. There are books on it and probably journal articles. I have never researched the literature, but I have some old books so there must be more. Of course, community mental health has taken over and state hospitals are closing down. Did you look under deinstitutionalization also? And prisons have their own mental health facilities these days. Don't know if you want to get into that. And sex offenders have their own prison mental health facilities some places. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

What is it that you want, exactly? What is your ideal result? Lets say that people work together - how would you fix it? If people group together - what does that matter? What exactly would make you feel comfortable, secure, and the rest? Do you really just want to be banned? If so, why would you have spent so much time editing in so many different content areas? There are many people who are willing to work with you, and if you feel people are part of a group, why not form your own group or make connections so that the group mentality doesn't affect you anymore? John Carter is willing to work on the ArbCom for you, so that is one person. Ceoil above welcomed you to his talk page whenever, so that is another person. There are others too that are willing to work with you, discuss things with you, and help you. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I love copy editing and article writing. I don't understand the wiki politics. They are over my head. The Scientology thing caught me by surprise. I am not a political person. The editors in the Arbitration posting against me are mostly not editors I work with anyway. As you point out, there are plenty of editors willing to work with me and with whom I have no problems. I especially appreciate the support of Ceoil and you. If I could be left alone to work on articles and voice my opinion in the areas in which I work, I would be happy. I should be able to open a GAR without having it overturned by an admin, for example. I have a good working relationship with many editors, far more than this group that opposes me. But I am not interested in forming a group to oppose the group that is against me. I don't believe that forming editing "cliques" is good for wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting a group for you to oppose others with, but a group of regulars that you talk and work with regularly. They could also look in on situations in-case things were becoming problematic so you wouldn't have to worry about being bullied. Now, if you want to be left alone, how would you propose such things happening in FAC and FAR? They are contentious because of the nature of pride in one's work, so there is a possibility of disputes. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point regarding the fate of a lone editor venturing into FAC and FAR without the protection of a group. I have good working relationships with the many editors that I talk to, ask opinions of etc., but they are not "FAC regulars" so that doesn't provide protection if I want to comment on a FAC by another editor. Now I only comment if I know the editor already. I don't see a way of forming a group for the purposes of commenting at FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Now, I don't mean protection, but more of... verification? If someone was acting out of line, they were people that you would trust to be able to view it independently and, if it was necessary, help deal with it so you don't become entrenched. It would also require you to be willing to trust that these people are looking out for you. They would be somewhere between a mentor and a friend. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is odd that the proposal at Arbitration is for me to be on placed on probation at good article and peer review processes. GA is the one place I have enduring collegial relationships with other editors. Peer review I can easily do without, as it is more of a duty. I will miss GA if that provision is implimemted. Ah, well. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That restriction would entail cutting off the nose to spite the face. Ceoil (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I put forth two principles and I honestly can't think of anything suitable for the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for trying. I feel that you and I are alike in some ways. (Hope you are not insulted by that comparison.) I would like to have a mentor, but it seems those relationships don't work out very well in practice. Plus I don't want to be a drain on another editor's wiki time. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I try to stay neutral in any situation and deal with arguments as arguments. If you ever need a second opinion, you can drop a note. Mentorships aren't really the best, as it doesn't do much for you. What you could do is try to do small collaborations with some people, one on one, in an area that wouldn't promote judgment of any kind. Perhaps find an obscure page somewhere and fix it up with, say, Karanacs, or something similar. That way, there is a positive experience that can be used as a reference point. The more that build up, the more people loosen up and don't respond so tensely. Even if you don't become -friends- with someone, you can still form some sort of understanding that is mutually beneficial. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want some obscure pages that need help, there are a lot of them. The WP:1.0 team has a lot of articles at "Stub" or "Start" class. Any of them would work. Or taking part in some of the regular collaborations, including that group's collaboration, would work. But the idea is definitely a good one. If you were to contact any of these editors regarding a field of mutual interest, or an article that you both think should be improved, and work together to do so, that would probably help everyone out. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I can think about that, the idea of collaborating on specific projects. I have had my fill of stub articles though. My first experiences were collaborations on Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, but those editors have left Wikipedia for good due to ultimately bad experiences on those two articles. Although we got one to FA, it was ultimately delisted. I have quite positive experiences with editors through DYK, GA, and the with editors for whom I copy edit for FAC. I have a couple offers now to collaborate/copy edit on articles. I think I have to be very careful that I don't comment on or edit any article by particular editors. When I replied to the RFC on the Thomas Paine book, I didn't realize it was Awadewat's article. I must be sure to check on whose article it is before I do anything. I did not originally know that Buckingham Palace belonged to Giano when I first attempted to edit it, not that I realized the ramifications of that back then. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Other9

A tag has been placed on Other9 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User:Mattisse/Other9. Hopefully problem solved? Gimmetrow 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Gimmetrow! That was scary. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. In the meantime I had moved it to User talk:Mattisse/Other9 - but no harm done, you can alweays request deletion of the latter if there is no longer a need for it. Passportguy (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know how to access it if it is at User talk:Mattisse/Other9. I have a link to User:Mattisse/Other9 on my user page, where I keep all my links to user pages. I am confused now. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, where do you want the page? It looks like you've settled on User:Mattisse/other9, which seems to have all the info you wrote. Would you like the two older pages deleted? Gimmetrow 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I copied it to User:Mattisse/Other9 which is what I meant to do in the first place. However, the {{db-author}} doesn't seem to work any more on the old page, but I would like it deleted. Thanks. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Mattisse/other9 fits the pattern of your subpages. Everything else should be a red link now. Gimmetrow 18:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you come across any other problems I might be able to help with, just let me know. Gimmetrow 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will. Much of the technical stuff like templates and transclusion and various codes is still a mystery to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bozo is back

Sorry for not being able to do anything on Sunday through Tuesday. There was a funeral to deal with, as well as a rather incredible number of relatives coming in. Did I mention that I have something like twenty aunts and uncles, and they all seem to have bred like rabbits? The accompanying legal matters were I think largely resolved yesterday, although there might be need for additional information tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am so glad you are back! When my mother died, my whole family moved into the house and we were all immobilized for a week, talking. I was prepared for you to be away for a longer time. Hope I haven't messed up while you were gone, as I posted evidence. Tell me what you think. I don't know what arbitration rules are, but perhaps I can remove evidence if you think what I put there is inappropriate. I tried to address Durova's concerns, but frankly, some of them are over my head. If you explain them to me I will try to address them. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone is free to change the nature of the evidence they present at any time. If you could provide a link to the comments from Durova you find difficult, and perhaps an indication of which e-mail comments you want retrieved, I can do so. It will be a bit harder going through what's left of your e-mail with your new additions, though. I should still be able to finish by the end of the day however. John Carter (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as the emails, if there is any evidence in them that I did not present that would be useful. For example, I thought I gave more of an analysis of Durova's comments, but what I gave may not be useful. I do not understand her accusations that I subtle vandalize, her accusations that I knew about her history over the last year or more, that I knew about her arbitrations, about her relationship with Giano and her mentoring relationship with Cirt. And I am not sure what difference she expected my knowledge of those things would make. I knew that she was involved in photography, providing featured pictures, but that is about it. Could you give me a brief summary of what in her history she is referring to and what I should know? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going through your e-mails to me as we speak, actually. Regarding where Durova gets her assumptions about what you know of her, I have no idea. I assume, possibly mistakenly, that she thinks I or someone else communicated that information to you through e-mails, or perhaps that such knowledge might be the reason for you not taking her up on her various offers. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the e-mails you sent me since the last ones I reviewed before I left, and you seem to have covered most all of the information already. Some slight details might be lacking in a few cases, but those details are probably not the primary points in any event. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Do you have any suggestions? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you have any specific ideas as to how to resolve the current situation, or if you see any ideas you like or dislike on the workshop page, those would be about it. When the evidence is basically collected, all that really happens thereafter is discussion of the evidence and the final decision of the arbitrators. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Judgement issues

I would be honored. I'm not sure of my own judgement sometimes, but I am more than willing to offer what assistance I can. John Carter (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe your judgment is very good and also you know way more that I do about Wikipedia and how to handle oneself. I have never participated in an arbitration before. Am I expected to make comments on other pages besides the "Evidence" page? Is it even proper for me to do so? Or do I just wait for an outcome now? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That RfArb

Keep calm - I suggest you should only comment when asked, and stick to what is requested, responding concisely and calmly (use your copyedting skills for your own benefit. I've already deconstructed (euphemism) one of the complaints against you and invited the Arbs to look for other cases where the complaints contain the seeds of their own destruction. -Philcha (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to do, as I have been warned by Arbs that if I did not respond, it would be worse for me. So I am confused and rudderless. Many of the complaints are old stuff from the last RFC, so I must reexplain all that again. As far as I can tell, no one has asked me a question that I can understand. Where are the questions? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please see [11] where I am told to present evidence. Carathor also told me that. I have not hear from John Carter since Saturday so I do not know what that status is on that. He told me he would present evidence starting Sunday, then he told me his mother died. I began to panic. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I know you asked me not to post on your talk page again, and I apologise for now doing so, but I just wanted to support what Philcha said. There are a lot of people on your side and I'm sure quite a few like me who have declined to get involved in this case for whatever reason. I honestly believe that the last thing anyone wants is to drive you away, even if that's what it seems like to you right now. As Philcha said, you're good with words, so now's the time to exercise that skill to your own advantage; stay calm and dignified. I think John said that he would probably be away until Wednesday because of brother's death, so no need for panic over that. Anyway, I'm gone, I won't be bothering you here again. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They said you had to respond, but not how quickly. Copy the relevant stuff into a User page and edit there; leave for 24 hours; do a thorough GA review on it - another of your strengths you should use to your own advantage - ; fix it; leave another 24 hours; put on your GA reviewer head again and review the changes. --Philcha (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not good with words when it comes to this kind of thing. I do not understand the mentality behind it. Thank you for your advice. I am done responding. If John Carter comes back, that will be great. However, after my mother died it was way more that one week before any of us were functional again, so I can't count on him. I am confused over the Arbitration and need help. I will stay out of it from now on, as it seems that you are both saying I am harming myself by responding. Thank you for notifying me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't over-react. Try taking my suggestion literally, but without actually posting the results. Then see if you think it works for you. My commnets were not a subtle hint, I don't do subtle. --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to start a user page. I just can't make myself do that. I have said pretty much everything, except the stuff I emailed to John which I cannot figure out how to retrieve. Everything is either defending myself against charges that I already have in the last RFC or defending myself from intensely hostile new charges over that one Scientology article. The history of Cirt, Durova, Scientology, the mentorship, Durova's relationship with Giano II etc. I know nothing about. Whatever happens, happens. I hope John Carter comes back. It will be a while before I can think clearly again. Thank you for your advice. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have my best wishes, Mattisse. Your overall excellent editing history speaks for itself. If there's anything I can do from my humble position, please just ask.  ^{.`</sup>^) Paine<sup>diss`cuss} (^^`.  01:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Request on the talk page

One of the arbitrators, Carcharoth, has requested input from various people regarding why there are such widely dissimilar opinions of you. In that request, he also requested comments from you yourself. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence#Differing opinions of Mattisse's conduct . John Carter (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fearful if I add my opinion, it will just stir up more negative comments. I believe you have done a good job of explaining how my "past" and the excessive mentions of me, the "Oh, no not Mattisse again", has created an image that preceeds me and gives me a negative halo. I also like what User:WhatamIdoing said on that talk page today. I feel like I am in a double bind. What do you think I should do? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitrator wants the material, so I'm guessing some sort of response would make sense. Exactly how detailed you would want to be is entirely your call. Were it me, I would probably put in a fairly short statement myself. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Might be good to draft it in User space and ask for comments. --Philcha (talk)

I will think about doing that, Philcha. However, I believe that the result is that I would be accused of more bad faith. It would stir up more dust, ending up in me feeling worse, I fear. There is no way I can express myself that would not just bring a barrage of negative comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to butt in, but as a suggestion, you could email your input to Carcharoth or to the Committee as a whole (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). That way you could express your perspective without stirring up a negative reaction from the peanut gallery (myself included, I suppose). MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think Carcharoth asked a very helpful question of those who have interacted with you to provide background information, which can be responded to in a largely factual way. However his question "And to Mattisse herself... can you explain why people have such differing opinions of your conduct?" has no factual response. I do not think it is helpful to answer it, and in your position I would politely not comment. As I said to Philcha on my talk page recently, it is rarely a good idea to guess what are other editors' intentions and motivations. If you need to know their intentions, ask them. If you don't, forget about it. Geometry guy 22:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Geometry guy. I agree. I can only speculate as to why. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

People have differing opinions about all sorts of things, just the way it is. Not for us to speculate as to why. Or more specifically for you to offer any speculation. Geometry guy's quite right. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Malleus. I do value your judgment. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Geometry guy and I don't always agree, but when we do it's a copper-bottomed certainty that we're right. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And almost all of the time, you do agree. Gold-bottomed certainty. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Exploration of Jupiter

I just wanted to let you know that this article has been nominated for community re-assessment. Ricardiana (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice

Hi, Mattisse. I have no problems with that. But please remember that it only works if you ask before you write something that looks hostile - so you have to do the first step yourself, no-one else can do it for you. A practical point: have you asked anyone based in N America? I checked your contribs and occasionally your last one of a "day" is around 3.00 am UK time, when even Wikipedian Brits are usually asleep. --Philcha (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know where people are from. User:John Carter may be bases in N. America. User talk:Malleus Fatuorum is on line most of the time I am, it seems, though I know he is in Britain. I will try to think of another person. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about John Carter's location. His contribs usually start around 14:00 GMT and end around midnight GMT, sometimes a bit later, and the start time looks wrong for N America. You may have to fall back on what I suggested earlier, draft comments in User space, and leave a message for whoever's turn it is, linking to both the real target page (incl section and which item you're replying to) and your draft). No offense meant, but I think getting into the habit of letting yourself cool down before posting for real may be the best outcome. --Philcha (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How feasible is that? Considering I have made maybe 3,000 or 4,000 edits since the last RFC ended, what proportion need to go through this procedure? Should I do this before proposing any community GAR? Before I pass/fail a GA? Before I comment on DYK? Although I have commented at FAC since the RFC, there has been no dissent or argument. Should I do this before making any comment on FAC anyway? Before I comment or vote on any article RFC? Certainly I will not ever post a Tomment/Plague list again. When I had a problem, such as with Jennavecia, although I did ask for advice, I also posted on her page which I will not do in the future. I realize that I over respond and will cut back on the number of comments I make regarding any one subject. I will also avoid making comments on the FAC editors' articles. Unfortunately I did not realize the Thomas Paine book article belonged to Awedewat before I commented on the RFC. I will definitely check to see if the article belongs to an FAC editor before commenting in the future. Could you be more specific how you envision how this would work? I'm not trying to be difficult here. And I see the value of your suggestion when I am upset, but that has happened only once that I can remember since the last RFC on me, on the Ali Smiles article when the GAR was removed and when it was taken to ANI. Perhaps I am not remembering correctly. It would not work for AN/I comments, as the AN/I would probably be over if there were an 8 hour time delay.

I am going to be way more careful in choosing articles to edit. I doubt I will ever risk being involved in FAR again. Perhaps you can give me examples of times I should have done that.

I hope the Arbitration Committee addresses the Ali Smiles GAR and IN/I and my behavior since the last RFC. I will appreciate any feedback they give me on my current behavior. I acknowledge that some of my past behavior was pointy and over the top, and sarcastic. I have tried to avoid that since the last RFC. But I did mishandle the pile on regarding the Ali Smiles article, and I never should have posted on Jennavecia's page. I recently approved a hook for Cirt, but perhaps I should not have done that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There's hardly ever anything that urgent at WP, it's not IRC. WP's dispute resolution procedures have to take account of time-zone differences, holidays, real life, etc., so there's little risk of your being convicted and punished in absentia - and with a bunch of people watching your Talk page, anyone who threatened you too quickly and without producing strong reasons up-front would get roasted.

For normal editing purposes waiting so long would be impractical. Short, entirely positive messages on Talk pages are OK too - e.g. "Thanks for ..." or "Congratulations, X has just been accpted as GA / for DYK / etc."

But you need to get into the habit of "GA-reviewing" your comments on Talk and review pages, especially as a discussion gets longer - I've noticed in the GAR and FAR I checked through that your initial posts were friendly and helpful, and in fact your first post after someone else behaved aggressively were also very reasonable, but after that you get so upset that you sometimes make yourself look bad. You need to review your intended responses and possibly discuss it with someone if what you're responding to seems at all unfriendly - and if you get 2 unfriendly response in a row, be sure to discuss it with someone before responding. --Philcha (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The two unfriendly responses in a row seems like a good idea. Or I will just stop responding when that happens as the better part of valour. But that is a good idea. You warned me before to slow down and take a break. From now on, I will take that advice, as well as consult. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the "two unfriendly responses" idea. I think it may be me who has suggested previously to "slow down and take a break". Naturally, I think it is exceptionally good advice :-) Geometry guy 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do too. It is certainly the simplest. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What you mentioned wasn't the kind of User page I had in mind. Besides being tactically inadvisable, whatever it contained would probably be out-of-date when, hypothetically, you wanted to use it. --Philcha (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It looks like the arbitrators are in the process of proposing some options on the Workshop page of the arbitration now. I'm not sure how much more attention they're going to be paying to additional evidence at this point. You might want to consider making a couple of hopefully restrained opinions regarding the various proposals but forward there now. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure where I am allowed to comment. If having five mentors/consultants isn't good enough, I don't know what to say. Since the last RFC against me I have received six metals/awards complimenting me specifically on my DYK and GA contributions plus a copy editing medal and an "Awesome Wikipedian" award. If the arbitrators aren't going to look at evidence, what else can I say? If they do not weigh in on the evidence, nothing will be settled. Banning me for 60 will only cause more bitterness. I don't understand their thinking, so I don't think I can address it. They have not explained themselves, other than by implication that they accept all the evidence against me. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are a party, so the "comments by parties" section would be where you would post. Regarding the proposed 60 day ban, I note that NYB, who proposed that, says up front that he doesn't really like that language. His intention was, basically, to give you a period of time during which you won't be distracted by events here to decide how and where you would like to make further contributions. And, please note, like I said, they have started making decisions. That isn't to say that they will ignore any further evidence, which they generally don't do when new evidence is added later. But they do think that there is a sufficient amount of evidence to be at least beginning to talk about how to proceed. And, for what it's worth, I don't think that they have accepted all the evidence against you, just that they can see something which they think can be addressed.

You seem to be thinking that Newyorkbrad's proposal is a form of punishment, which I think he tried to make clear was not in fact his intention. The purpose of the time, however long it might be, and he said 60 days was not specifically chosen for any particular reason, would be to give you an opportunity to, basically, take a break and use that time away to think about what you want to do here and how you want to proceed from here. Lots of people take a lot of breaks, so I don't think that he's thinking of the proposal as any form of "punishment", but rather as an opportunity to take some time to think about things. God knows that, with the crises which seem to erupt every day, it's hard for a lot of people to do that. Including me. But it is often the case that people say, in effect, "take a few days off and think about where you want to go from here". That's basically what he's saying there. I know myself that being gone for a while does give one a chance to, basically, clear one's head a little and maybe think through one's goals here, and I think that's all he's trying to indicate by that proposal. Unfortunately, it has to be put on in as a "proposed decision", which means it should at least look like something legal, and that arbitrator in particular in fact is a lawyer, so you can be sure it will look legalistic, because he writes and probably thinks that way. But having read his comments I don't think that it's intended as being any sort of "punishment", just, for lack of a better metaphor, asking you to take a vacation for awhile, maybe take the chance to do other things you enjoy for a while, and then come back with a new perspective. I think that's all he's trying to say there though. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it anything but punishment, whether or not that is his intent? If I do not edit, I would not be at Wikipedia. It would be very frustrating reading Wikipedia articles without the ability to edit for 60 days, so I would not do it. Does anyone think that 60 days of "contemplation" with no helpful input from others would be constructive? I think if I did do that I would become more frustrated. The mistakes I made were from lack of knowledge and failure to realize the consequences of my actions. Seeing what Giano and George get away with routinely, I failed to see what I was doing as so momentous. The complaints are all from a small group of interlinked editors, and not the community in general. Therefore, how is 60 days, or any number of days banned/blocked, to be of use except to result in more bitterness that this small group, relative the to number of editors I have aided, can have such an untoward impact on my fate? It would merely further alienate me from Wikipedia. It would not give me the benefit of learning and growing from my mentors/consultants. The fact Newyorkbrad took none of my evidence into account, that the WP:WIKIHOUNDING, WP:COPYVIO and other alleged recent infractions at DYK and GA and GAR are taken at face value makes it seem that the proposal was based on other, unstated evidence or on evidence from the last RFC (which included evidence from the first 2 RFCs). Therefore, my attempts at improvement since the last RFC has been useless. I can only see this to mean that NewYorkBrad wants me gone. Since the last RFC against me, I have received 8 awards/medals from editors uninvolved in this Arbitration, mostly for my work on GA and DYK. How does that square with censure of my DYK and GA work in the arbitration? I cannot imagine a worst suggestion. It is equivalent to an indefinite ban. It may as well be such. I would never petition the Arbitration Committee for reinstatement. This experience is awful enough. Why would Newyorkbrad think that I would voluntarily go through another interaction with the committee for the privilege of editing with a red A on my forehead? I was foolish enough to believe that my editing benefited the encyclopedia. If that is not true, then I am no longer interested in participating. It is necessary for me to feel valued in order to continue. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Tone it down about ten percent, and tell them that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't. It's only a proposal and already many have expressed their dismay at the prospect of a 60-day ban. I'd suggest letting others pick up this particular baton on your behalf Mattisse, which many have already done. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus, so the copper-bottom clause comes into effect :-) There are two additional points I would note. First, NYB made this proposal on the Workshop page not the Proposed Decision page, which means he is looking for input and trying to find a good proposal, rather than imposing one from a position of authority. Second, NYB has been distracted by the Giano II wheel war stuff recently, and is travelling this weekend, so he may not yet be in a position to devote his best attention to the evidence at hand. There's no point in overwhelming him on his return. Less is more. Geometry guy 21:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)