User talk:Mattisse: Difference between revisions

4 July 2024
News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna In the media: War and information in war and politics Sister projects: On editing Wikisource Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares Humour: A joke Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

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

Wikipedia:ARS/Tagged

• Quid pro quo list

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": [1].

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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

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

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.

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

		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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Mattisse, re [2] – 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please do not link to copyrighted works, as you did here [3]. Please take a moment to read WP:COPYLINKS. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Noticed this.[4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Durova on ??

A small group of FAC editors and the admins who support them.

• User:Karanacs FAC editor
• User:Moni3 FAC editor - holds Harvey Milk against me because I was a stickler that she quote a California statute correctly.

• No, I don't. I changed it. I was snippy at the time as I usually am during an FAC, but the material changed and it's still there. I consulted two attorneys to interpret the sources for me. Legal and medical information makes me very cautious. Have you seen the history of the talk page of Harvey Milk? I got two editors blocked for 3RR. That article went to mediation on a paragraph that did not belong about Jim Jones. Every other week there is a complaint on something in the article. If it's valid, I change it. If it's not I throw a hissyfit. Why don't you let me keep my own list of what I hold against you and everyone else? Why am I not the foremost authority on my own grudges, or lack thereof? --Moni3 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Cirt FAC editor - holds Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology against me
• User:Jennavecia - sides with User:Malleus Fatuorum on all things
• FloNight♥♥♥ - defender of User:Jennavecia - defends favorites
• User:Malleus Fatuorum - FAC editor - runs with FAC group
• User:Casliber FAC editor - hold Major depressive disorder against me, as well as my questioning of his use of "Cheers". Tried to have me blocked for a joking comment on my talk page about ADD, which I actually do have.
• User:Durova - holds Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology against me; mentor of User:Cirt because of his POV on Scientology
• User:Fainites FAC editor - holds Attachment therapy against me
• User:Awadewit FAC editor - holds Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology against me because I oppose the POV against Scientology and because I think a GA needs a Critical reception section; holds my opposition to equating Michael Moore with Thomas Paine against me.
• User:Maralia FAC editor - runs with FAC group
• User:Giano II FAC editor - holds Buckingham Palace and Restoration comedy FARs against me; engages in personal attacks but his behavior is defended by User:Casliber, User:Risker and User:Lar
• User:Tex - can be counted upon to comment against me, although I do not know what my connection with him is - may be one of the reflexive defenders of Giano II crown who hold the FAR of Restoration comedy against me.
• User:Bishonen - another reflexive defender of Giano II and also holds the FAR of Restoration comedy against me.
• User:Risker - defended of Giano II at the expense of editors he harms
• User:Lar - defends specific FAC editors; has been against me early one (not clear why - maybe because I don't remember him) and sponsored an RFC against me with User:Casliber

Note: User:SandyGeorgia has refrained, since asking me back after her RFC against me, from rushing to dump on me as the others have. This is much appreciated.

I'm not sure if I'm being likened to a plague or having one wished upon me ;) I assure you that my hope for you is only that you figure out how to handle conflicts a little better, because your pattern of (and methods of) escalating them in many instances does not help you to achieve your goals. You make many, many valuable contributions; it makes it more disheartening to see the personal attacks, pointiness, and "poor me" refrain that have a lot of editors puzzled at how to interact with you successfully. Karanacs (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Gblock-i We're done here.--Tznkai (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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>[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]