Geometry guy (talk | contribs) Consensus of mentors |
→Kirill's Resignation: Joopercoopers justifies Giano's statement as Giano is just commenting on "behavior" ie "behaving like a vulturistic vampiric banshee" is ok if you just make sure "behaviring" is part of the statement |
||
Line 329: | Line 329: | ||
(ec) I agree as well. Admitting to mistakes is not easy: such admissions should be received gracefully. Kirill may have made some good faith mistakes, just as you have Mattisse, and indeed we all have. The "special committee" is not going to happen, and was never intended to cause arbitration cases anyway. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
(ec) I agree as well. Admitting to mistakes is not easy: such admissions should be received gracefully. Kirill may have made some good faith mistakes, just as you have Mattisse, and indeed we all have. The "special committee" is not going to happen, and was never intended to cause arbitration cases anyway. ''[[User talk:Geometry guy|Geometry guy]]'' 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I never asked for Krill to resign. I asked for him to acknowledge a mistake. Giano is not just "tolerated", he is asked to be a member of the "special committee" by ArbCom. Along with [[User:Joopercoopers|Joopercoopers]], whose edit analysis shows that Giano's page is his second highest edit;[http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?l=all&t=Joopercoopers] and who justifies Giano's behavior.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joopercoopers&diff=301607023&oldid=301606587] What is going on? Actually, I am learning from this. Just tack "behaving" on a statement and you can say anything. Regards, —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:29, 11 July 2009
16 May 2024 |
Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
---|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, add it . |
No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
|
Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
GAR of Exploration of Jupiter
Exploration of Jupiter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Plan
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Boulton
I think I've cleaned up what you were concerned about. "Manufacturer" is no longer used in place of "Boulton" and I got rid of a bunch of the uses of his name, substituting generally "he". Would it matter if he was an author, seamstress, or astronaut or something else shorter than manufacturererer?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is just my opinion but I do not like any alternative terms for the main person the article is about. In one of your California politician articles, your referred to the same person as "the attorney", "the Californian" (despite there being other Californians and attorneys in the article), "the political strategist" etc. I do not find other articles on people doing this. I may be wrong, but I find it confusing. It always causes me to stop and think: who is being referred to here? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but then I got people complaining I was using the name too much. Rock and a hard place. I think it comes from me writing one sentence at a time, and my seventh grade English teacher always said, have a subject in your sentences ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Why the theory of evolution? And what transportation? Agree with the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Darwin was in the group. I have been copy editing Darwin articles lately, like Origin of the Species. It is impossible to underestimate the importance of this. I copyied the rest of the phrase from the Industrial Revolution article. But also look at the Industrialization article. It is ridiculous to assert that Boulton was a major driver of this. Best to remove the implication. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Erasmus Darwin, actually, but I guess he presaged his grandson's work enough from what I can see. Plainly there are different views of what drove the industrial revolution. If you read what I wrote, I refer to the engine driving it, not Boulton. I think it is right. Causation chains are difficult to deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he did presage his grandson. The Watt engine contributed to the Industrial Revolutions, but so did an enormous number of other things. To say one engine, one version of the steam engine, "drove" the revolution is a massive statement. However, if you want to root around in industrialization articles, to provide your point, be my guest as they say. I feel this is a red herring in the article, but if you feel it is worth holding up the article to "prove" this point, that is your choice. I feel that Boulton does not need this extraneous baggage to be an interesting, notable, historically interesting person. A creative businessman, yes. Did he personally design the coins, develop the processes etc. or did those that he hired? I say ditch the hype about driving industrialization, unless you want to immerse yourself in the history of industrialization in Britain. Personally, I do not think you will find anything. "My view" - disclaimer! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I may make it clearer that it is opinion. You are correct, how do you say in a myriad of factors which "drove" and which didn't? And no, Boulton didn't design the coins. As near as I can tell, he waved the wand. He may have done designing of the machines, but he made almost nothing with his own hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not clear how much he actually "designed". He saw the potential in the design and he encouraged Watt to do it. But mainly, it appears to me, he was a business man who fascilitated others to do the designing necessary for his business. Therefore, how much should the article get into proving he "drove" anything. Even the pictures of the designs suggested are not "his", and therefore unnecessary to the article, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- He designed things like the mint machinery; Watt designed the engines and I think Boulton helped make them practical by designing the processes by which they could be made. Anyway, I think you are right about the Industrial Revolution. I can't definitively say that the machines triggered, or drove, or whatever, the Industrial Revolution, and so the article shouldn't say it. I've left a comment on the FAC page. You keep me honest.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am not clear how much he actually "designed". He saw the potential in the design and he encouraged Watt to do it. But mainly, it appears to me, he was a business man who fascilitated others to do the designing necessary for his business. Therefore, how much should the article get into proving he "drove" anything. Even the pictures of the designs suggested are not "his", and therefore unnecessary to the article, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I may make it clearer that it is opinion. You are correct, how do you say in a myriad of factors which "drove" and which didn't? And no, Boulton didn't design the coins. As near as I can tell, he waved the wand. He may have done designing of the machines, but he made almost nothing with his own hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he did presage his grandson. The Watt engine contributed to the Industrial Revolutions, but so did an enormous number of other things. To say one engine, one version of the steam engine, "drove" the revolution is a massive statement. However, if you want to root around in industrialization articles, to provide your point, be my guest as they say. I feel this is a red herring in the article, but if you feel it is worth holding up the article to "prove" this point, that is your choice. I feel that Boulton does not need this extraneous baggage to be an interesting, notable, historically interesting person. A creative businessman, yes. Did he personally design the coins, develop the processes etc. or did those that he hired? I say ditch the hype about driving industrialization, unless you want to immerse yourself in the history of industrialization in Britain. Personally, I do not think you will find anything. "My view" - disclaimer! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Erasmus Darwin, actually, but I guess he presaged his grandson's work enough from what I can see. Plainly there are different views of what drove the industrial revolution. If you read what I wrote, I refer to the engine driving it, not Boulton. I think it is right. Causation chains are difficult to deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Idea for project
You know, you keep telling me to look for another Speer, and I think I've found one. I was reading a book about Khrushchev's visit to the US in 1959, and he seems to have been a very conflicted character. He ended his career, in retirement by writing his memoirs against the demands of the KGB and having them smuggled to the West to be published. As it happens, I am going to Moscow in August, though I doubt it will be much help to the article. But he could be incredibly charming, and he could be a total jerk. Might be worth doing, though I'd have to get in a fair number of references.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds promising! I don't know much about Khrushchev other than he was always portrayed as a lout, banging his shoe on a table. It stands to reason that he must have been a complex character as he headed the USSR during a complicated time in its history, a time that in retrospect should probably be re-examined in light of what happened later. In reading various articles on Russia, I always am learning things that I did not know.
- Perhaps Khrushchev had an interesting relationship with his wife, as I remember her being mentioned in an era when wives, never mind Soviet wives were not showcased. And there must be plenty of material. I did not know about the autobiography. Dasha by the Black Sea? I know little about the complexities of Soviet politics of the time. My brother sent me a book on recently released files on Cuba, including the Cuban missile crisis and the relationship between Castro and Khrushchev then. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently he was allowed to keep two homes, a dasha, and a house in Moscow. This was unusual, usually when Soviet bigwigs were retired, they either (ahem) died, or else were forced to be an "ordinary citizen". I'm not sure where the dasha was. At least according to the book on K's visit to the US, which has an afterword, he was very remorseful about his role in Stalin's crimes, and when his grandson was asked what his grandfather did in retirement, he said, "Grandfather cries". And when he came to America, there was an unprecedented media frenzy. I'm going to start looking for good references. I don't know that I will start serious work until I finish Boulton and get the Nixon election articles out of the way. But I have a good feeling about this one. As for the wife, she was rather outspoken for a Soviet wife, from what I could see from the book I read (most were thick in the body, thick in the head, and spoke about as much as a wooden doll).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, they had it, but as I had already ordered it by mail, I didn't buy it of course. But it is likely to be the book most heavily relied on. Thanks for the support at Boulton. With a centennial date six weeks away, I nommed it faster than I should have but I think it is all working out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have all the books now except that key biography. I've also been giving some thought to Liberty Bell in the spirit of the holiday, but there is surprisingly little written about it. As for books, just some kiddie books and something from 1910 which is utterly unusable.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- All I know about the bell is that there was some discussion about the crack causing it to deteriorate a while ago. It is a icon, but not like the flag. I have the key biography ordered also. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably speaking out of line
I'm almost certainly speaking out of line here Mattisse, so I hope you'll forgive me, but my comment is prompted by a recent change you made to your ArbCom plan, which caused me to read it again.
Like you, if I'd found myself in the position that you now do—something that is not altogether implausible—I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to start, so I fully understand why you've crafted your plan as you have. But it seems to leave little room for your dignity, or to make it clear that you're in charge of events, not your mentors. If this plan goes tits up it won't be your mentors who get bollocked, it'll be you. Just my unsolicited opinion, feel free to ignore it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific? At this point, it is very hard for me to evaluate the plan. It seems that much of the criticism is that the plan is too easy on me. However, I do trust the judgment of those on my mentor list. Would you be willing to be placed back on the list? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- You know that I value your contributions here far more than I care about our past disagreements, but the role of your mentors really does need to be clarified; at the very least, is is passive or active? I've always been happy to help anyone who asks for my help, but I'm most definitely not any kind of policeman. If I were in your position I'd try to recast my plan into a form showing what I planned to do or not to do, not what my mentors were permitted to do to me. I'm just commenting from my own perspective though, so don't take anything I say as gospel. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have tried to compromise. It is far less harsh and demeaning than User:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom / User talk:Moni3/Mattisse stewards arbcom. I have tried to incorporate suggestions of the others. Sections such as Behavioral rules and Coping techiques are meant to address what I will do. I have to trust in my mentors to do right by me. From the reactions to Tony1's charges at I hope whatever plas this is works, I feel that my mentors will be fair. What do you think I should modify? I really hesitated to put punishments in there, but I did so to compromise with my critics. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hesitate to rock the boat, as it appears that your plan is likely to be acceptable to the arbitrators, which is all that matters now. My concern is really that you don't perceive yourself, and neither do others, as a naughty child that needs to be watched and may need to be punished. Basically all I'm saying is that I want to be sure that you emerge from this with your dignity intact. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- I trust my mentors and would be especially confident in them if you were willing to be added back to the list. I feel my dignity is intact. I did make errors in the past, I admit that, and I do not intend to repeat them. But I am editing basically as I always have, just avoiding articles by certain editors. Since it is a small group, that is easy to do. Plus, just in general, I am not doing the FAC editing I used to do. I prefer GA anyway, except for editors/articles I especially like. Do you see it otherwise? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't see it otherwise; there are certain editors I avoid as well, and I'm quite certain we all do that. Perhaps your plan could be as simple as continuing to do what you've already been doing since the ArbCom case started, and simply outlining what that is? I don't know any more than you do about how ArbCom works, perhaps even less, but so long as you're happy with your plan there's no problem. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm not declining your invitation. I'm just reiterating my view that the group should not have a monitoring role; that's something I point blank refuse to get involved with. You have a bunch of good people you can call on for guidance and help when you feel that you need it, and hopefully you think I'm one of those, but I don't want to get involved in discussions about sanctions and all the rest of the bollox that will inevitably surround your plan. I'll support you just as I would any other valuable editor, whether I'm on your list of mentors or not. Or even, dare I say it, whether I'm on your "plague list" or not. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Questions at case proposed decision talk page
Mattisse, I've posted some questions here. If you could find time to answer those and contact the people you have listed on your plan, that would help move the case forward. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has already had some good work throughout this years, but has not been nominated to GA due to minor doubts about grammar. A user has already made some copy-edit, but there are still. Could you check it up if you have some free time? It's a bit longer than Yahiko's article, but it seems to have been worked more in prose. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is Ling.Nut
- Here is Ling.Nut. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
My advice, for what it's worth
My advice, for what it's worth, is to remove the section you've added about "aspersions cast by Tony1". I can see that you firmly believe in the truth of what you're saying, but it's really sending out the wrong message IMO, or is at best open to misinterpretation. Some may view it as a getting your excuses in first, for instance, a reluctance to accept your own responsibility for events. Sometimes it's best just to bite your tongue. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- I understand your point. Yet aspersions cast on me is the basis of almost the entire case against me in the Major Depression RFC, the ANI leading to the Arbitration, and the Arbitration itself. If this type of behavior was not routine regarding me, there would not have an arbitration covering my three years at Wikipedia based on only a kernal of legitimate incidents, which I acknowledge, but the preponderance of "evidence" was in the category of "aspersions cast by Tony1". His casting of aspersions, although without merit, are repeated over and over by those editors vested in my down fall, then taken up and reiterated by their affiliates/cohorts. Even after the entire legitimacy of the original aspersion is disproved, no one bothers to look into the facts afterward. This is a very serious situation and is the core of my problems on Wikipedia. If it cannot be stopped, if people cannot be held responsible when then cast aspersions, as I have been, then this whole arbitration has a double standard and is hopeless. That fact may as well be acknowledged now, before we waste any more time on it. Have you ever really gone through the reams of evidence against me to see if it was valid? Those that have, like SilkTorn, see that largely it is not. Did you know that RFC1 and RFC2 against me were entirely without merit? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- The important issue here is the impression you're giving of how you react to such perceived injustices, and an unwillingness to let the past be the past. How long ago was RfC1, for instance? Don't offer people rocks and them complain when they throw them at you. Nothing can change what's happened, but you can at least influence what's going to happen. I'm just offering my opinion though, perhaps others may see more merit in this apparent refusal to let bygones be bygones than I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK, the general point is well taken. I am willing to let bygones by bygones, but are others? To answer your question, RfC1 was 2 1/2 years ago, but it was the trigger for the arbitration because Cirt's AN/I thread that provoked the Arbitration used it to prove many RfC's had not solved the problem of me. This resulted directly in me being blocked indefinitely by Tznkai, and in the Request for Arbitration by Durova, and by several editors to show I was incorrigible. Are you saying that it will never be used unjustly again? Or that Tony's aspersion will never be used against me? Should I not dare, in the future, to ask for reliable references on an article talk page in case the editor flips out and characterizes me inaccurately, and Tony or someone like him wants to use it against me? Perhaps it is just too risky. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, I'm simply saying try to be bigger than those you believe are holding grudges against you, not the same size as them. My block log is not infrequently used as evidence against me, and in particular of my alleged "incivility", but do I care? Not a whit; I just consider those shallow enough not to examine the facts to be twats hardly worth bothering about. And if I may say so that's got to be the way forward for you as well. Who cares who said what when? You can't change the past, I can't change the past, but maybe we can help change the future. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, Mattisse. The problem with keeping your ammo dumps in full view is that they occasionally get blown up - in all sense of that ambiguous phrase :-/ If you have concerns about someone's approach towards you, it's better to keep your notes safely on your hard drive.
- The, as Malleus says, you can get credit for being "bigger than those you believe are holding grudges against you" - but still ready to zap them if they give serious trouble. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- People seem to come up with stuff I can't find anyway. I have enough trouble keeping track of My plan and the arbitration links. I have nearly 3000 pages on my watchlist. I can't feature keeping things on my hard drive. My life is complicated enough. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Signed up
A minute ago --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Mesoscale convective system
I made comments on the GAN page three days ago, which haven't been responded to. I need clarification concerning one of your points, and if I have satisfied your other concerns. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.
- Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
- User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
- Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)
- On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 04:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Updated to include notes present in final decision, per potential confusion below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mattisse, I hope that the above confusing summary of the arbitration case does not cause you concern. I think the final decision is fairly clear, and you should read that in order to understand the outcome, not the above. (I've commented on the potential confusion here.)In any case the arbitration case is over with a fairly sensible outcome in my view. I hope you will never need to return to arbitration again, and that your plan will enable you to enjoy the pleasure of contributing to Wikipedia, while easing the stress that this sometimes involves. Geometry guy 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
I was on my own very happy to have been of any help to an editor of more than estimable character face some of the often unreasonable criticism you have faced more than once. With luck, those sorts of situations won't arise again, but I would be more than happy to be of any use to you again. And thank you very much for the barnstar. I noticed that there was one specific award you have not received, which seems to me to be a very unfortunate oversight on the behalf of the community.
The Purple Star | ||
Very few editors have had to face the kinds of extraordinary abuse that you have faced. Even fewer stay with the project here after facing such abuse. You have the thanks and respect of myself and several others for the character and courage you have faced in those situations. Thank you for continuing to be an invaluable contributor. John Carter (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) |
Greetings Mattisse! Thanks for passing the article. I still need to clarify his position on Arab nationalism and Islamism within the Biography section, which I will do in the coming days. Anyhow, to reply to your last note, I could add a list of selected works if you think it's a good idea. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Are any of his books still available in libraries or for sale? Have any of them been translated? Since he was an important writer, it seems like mention of the most notable works is appropriate if they would have any meaning or relevance to an interested reader. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if his works have been translated (I'll have to confirm if they are or not). If they haven't been translated would that render them irrelevant to the article? The great majority seem to be directed strictly to an Arab audience, but again I'm not sure. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- WorldCat lists only foreign language editions here, but that wouldn't (I think) make them irrelevant to the article. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I passed it on to the article writer, encouraging him to list the major works. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. I will list them now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! I passed it on to the article writer, encouraging him to list the major works. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- WorldCat lists only foreign language editions here, but that wouldn't (I think) make them irrelevant to the article. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if his works have been translated (I'll have to confirm if they are or not). If they haven't been translated would that render them irrelevant to the article? The great majority seem to be directed strictly to an Arab audience, but again I'm not sure. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler has stated his willingness to be one of my mentors/advisers.[1] —Mattisse (Talk) 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
There are very few sources available for it so what's in the article is all I could really work with. I've responded to your comments on the review page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
The funny thing is that I didn't even know that Hispanic Americans in World War II was in the main page until I checked my "watchlist" and began to wonder why are so many people editing it. Remember the tough time I had with the "FAC"? I was stressed out. I also want to thank you for helping me gain my 50th DYK. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I do remember all the problems we had, so I was particularly gratified to see it on the main page, and on July 4. A triumph! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Its important
Dear Mattisse, How are you? Its me Samir. I am in great need of rewriting a journal article to improve its English, can you help me? Its 35 A4 pages long. Let me know by sending an e-mail to mohammadsamirhossain@yahoo.com please. - SamirShoovrow (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Was I too harsh on him?
[2]--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Without going through all your comments one by one, I asked you to review the article because you are an expert in law and I respect your opinion. I have written a variety of Supreme Court cases articles having to do with mental health law, my area of expertise, but I was always aware that I was not a legal expert. I learned a great deal from reading one of your previous reviews of a case. I appreciated your expertise. I am an advocate of Wikipedia articles on subjects relating to my profession reflecting a profession level of writing and knowledge. I don't think you need worry about having the same expectations regarding legal subjects. You are performing the function of educating on legal matters. I think people in general misunderstand court decisions and your expertise is of benefit. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Your plan
Good luck with it. I've always maintained that you're a massive asset to the community - to have you solely a massive asset to the community will be tremendous and I'm impressed with the way you worked things out. Once more, a heartfelt good luck. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Second that, and congratulations on the purple barnstar. Don't know enough about the issues that have been going on and you've clearly now got a system in place, but if you do ever want an outsider to review and comment on interactions just contact me and I'll be glad to do what I can. . . dave souza, talk 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Mattisse, I heard about the plan over at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Single#Arbitration report and took a quick look at the plan itself as it's rare for an editor to propose their own remedies. It was a bit of a shock as it covers so much stuff that's hard to change overnight. This was followed by awe as it's obvious the Arb commitee and admins have put in hundreds of collective hours thinking about this case. I head over to your user page to leave a note and see why the time is worth it. If you get to a point where plan-A is discouraging then here's a plan-B. It is to take many wiki-breaks. I've come to realize their are many thousands of diligent editors; maybe it's hundreds of thousands. I take breaks knowing the odds are every single article is in good hands. Best wishes for you on and off Wikipedia.
- ps: I love that alluvial fan picture you have as your current home page image. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughts on my experience. The plan looks overwhelming but it really boils down to "don't get caught up and disengage instead"; as you indicate, nothing is that important that emotionally-based editing is appropriate. Your plan-B is very good. I feel ArbCom's solution was thoughtful and crafted to be constructive. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. In some ways the alluvial fan picture looks like Polyozellus (a fungi)! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please note
Mattisse, I have added the article myself in my talk page at the last part. Please try to edit it for language.Shoovrow (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am so sorry to say that I cannot do it. The subject is not one with which I am familiar nor am an expert. It would take me weeks to do and I would not be confident in the results. I apologize to you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You deserve it!
The Resilient Barnstar | ||
For being there, whether it's editing or being there to talk, a calm person in this wikiInsanityWehwalt (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC) |
Names of the Greeks
Hello, I was wondering what the status of the Featured Article Review for this article is, since the review page is named 'archive1'. Is this active? --macrakis (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is active. The 'archive1' opens up automatically when a FAR or FAC is started (or 'archive2' etc.) It is a new way the FAC people have started using that makes it easiler for them to archive after the process is over. Since an archive is already opened, they don't have to "archive" it when it is closed. Hope that explains it. That's the best I can do! Anyway, the FAR for Names of the Greeks is open and active. Please contribute. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Advisory Council
Ignore who turned the council down. Focus on who the council never asked.
I, for one, was not asked. Malleus was not asked. I assume you were not asked? Was Iridescent? It seems that Tony1 may have been asked (the statements are vague). I am sure others can speak up. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't asked, though, given the whole Matthew Hoffman ase and a willingness o speak out when I think they've acted badly, perhaps it's understandable, given that they wouldn't want someone pointing out all their injustices and wontonviolation of the NPOV policy. (e.g Scientology, where having a view = topic ban)Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I want to know the process entailed in the selection, or non selection. I agree that both of you would have been an excellent members, as I do believe in your impartiality, although I do not always agree with your points of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Really it does not matter a lot/jot who was asked. The questions are: was this thought through, what is the purpose, what kind of editors are needed, and why? The impression of a fait accompli has left a lot of editors (many well established) with a sour taste in the mouth. Arbcom was doing really well until this. Geometry guy 23:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. I was feeling good until this. It is unclear who is at the steering wheel of this proposal, and what is their investment in having this "committee" whose duties are undefined and the selection process of which is unspecified. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever the thinking behind this move, and I'm keeping an open mind, I'm absolutely certain that you've got nothing to worry about personally Mattisse. That six or seven or however many members took part in your ArbCom case isn't really all that surprising, as lots of editors did. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. There were "key" editors, and those are on the "committee", plus one who "turned it down" allegedly–one third. So you thing it is a "coincidence"? Name those who were more key. It is enough for me to lose my new found faith in ArbCom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Malleus is completely right to keep an open mind and a relaxed perspective: that is what is best for wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, Mattisse. If they dared to do anything like that there would be hell to pay. But they probably know that and wouldn't bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting that Joopercoopers second most edited page is User talk:Giano II[3], also on the "list". I don't think the names on the list are independent from each other, aside from the issue that two of them are already on ArbCom and presumably know the agenda. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Not true. There were "key" editors, and those are on the "committee", plus one who "turned it down" allegedly–one third. So you thing it is a "coincidence"? Name those who were more key. It is enough for me to lose my new found faith in ArbCom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Whatever the thinking behind this move, and I'm keeping an open mind, I'm absolutely certain that you've got nothing to worry about personally Mattisse. That six or seven or however many members took part in your ArbCom case isn't really all that surprising, as lots of editors did. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree. I was feeling good until this. It is unclear who is at the steering wheel of this proposal, and what is their investment in having this "committee" whose duties are undefined and the selection process of which is unspecified. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Really it does not matter a lot/jot who was asked. The questions are: was this thought through, what is the purpose, what kind of editors are needed, and why? The impression of a fait accompli has left a lot of editors (many well established) with a sour taste in the mouth. Arbcom was doing really well until this. Geometry guy 23:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Chronicle of a Disappearance review
Hey Mattisse! I've come to inform you that, unfortunately, I probably won't be able to work on the article as I had planned and the original nominator has still not returned. I don't what the procedure is here, but if nothing is done before the expiration of the hold, don't hesitate to fail the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- In an unrelated incident, my home internet access has gone on the blink so won't be able to work on Coral Reefs until a replacement part arrives. Should he back online within a week, in the meantime thanks for your continuing efforts to improve the article; dave souza editing from a public library as Davesalterego (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Kirill's Resignation
Hi, Mattisse, I think it's time to withdraw now. Admittedly trading of insults between Giano and you is probably not ArbCom's greatest concern right now [ :-) ], but you'll get brownie points for walking away. It looks like the Council idea is already dead, so there's nothing worth fighting about. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Philcha, walk away now, you've said your piece. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I realize that there are different standards for different editors, and that Giano is immune from normal standards.. Besides, he is a member of the "special committee" appointed by ArbCom. Given that reality, that he can cause an arbitration against me, I will take your advice. Thank you for pointing out the reality of Wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough Mattisse, whatever you say. I'll just leave you with this, something that I keep coming back to, but keep forgetting:
--Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
- Malleus, Are you willing to remove Giano's ad hominem attack on me?[4] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- This ad hominem serves only to indicate how sour is Giano's perspective. I've no idea why he is tolerated, but the best approach, in my view, is to ignore him. Geometry guy 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I agree as well. Admitting to mistakes is not easy: such admissions should be received gracefully. Kirill may have made some good faith mistakes, just as you have Mattisse, and indeed we all have. The "special committee" is not going to happen, and was never intended to cause arbitration cases anyway. Geometry guy 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I never asked for Krill to resign. I asked for him to acknowledge a mistake. Giano is not just "tolerated", he is asked to be a member of the "special committee" by ArbCom. Along with Joopercoopers, whose edit analysis shows that Giano's page is his second highest edit;[5] and who justifies Giano's behavior.[6] What is going on? Actually, I am learning from this. Just tack "behaving" on a statement and you can say anything. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)