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

Wikipedia:ARS/Tagged

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

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

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

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

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

<reply below>

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

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

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

Thank you for your comment [1] It gives me solace. I wish you had not removed it, as I think it sheds the clearest light. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I suspect G guy is busy trying to fix the issues on the Alert page, the link you requested is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed my request from G guy's page, so your post on my page is unnecessary. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Some reply. I have ceased following the article and sources, and since it would take a lot of work to update myself, I am willing to avoid editing the article. The "lead editor" has a view with which I disagree, so it is better to let that view prevail. Thus I wish to strike all my comments. I am deeply regretful that I ever contributed to the article and wish I could remove my contributions as well, but of course I know I cannot. As far as not seeing your comments, I have a severe eyesight problem and when comments are not well formated for reading, I have difficulty. Thus, you ban notice is still hard for me to find. Regarding "wow", I have seen that used many times effectively by other editors and so I copied it. It is a common device on Wikipedia. Please point out any questions that I have not answered. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered all the questions, but that's okay: they were meant to encourage reflection, and this seems to have been of some benefit. Also, as an indefinite ban from the article and its talk page has been agreed (I will record this shortly), the main issues are moot. "Indefinite" here does not mean "permanent": it may be lifted by any advisor/mentor in the future, either in response to a request from you, or following discussion on the monitoring page.

• <IMPORTANT> In response to your comments, I would encourage you to read your plan again. In particular, accusations of article ownership are personalizations of disagreements, contrary to your plan. You have pledged there to focus your contributions on article content and the betterment of the encyclopedia. Your comment about a lead editor having a view which you should let prevail is contrary to this spirit, and wishing to withdraw comments and contributions in protest or frustration is inappropriate behaviour. Good conduct aims for collaboration, mutual understanding, and disengagement from disputes; it does not include posts of a rhetorical nature which aim to be "effective" at seeking attention or winning an argument.

I have a great deal of sympathy for your poor eyesight. If you could explain when you find posts hard to read, that would be helpful to your advisors. There is browser technology available (large print, screen readers and the like) to help you contribute. Members of WP:WPACCESS may be able to provide further advice. The bottom line here, though, is that you should not be writing in response to discussions which you have not been able to read. Geometry guy 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you bolded starred, made big, or in some other way made the "ban" comment stand out. As it is, I have difficulty even now finding it. I use "find" in my browser now that I know the operative word is "banning". Before I searched for "banned" and could not find it. If I dared, I would refactor it so I can find it easily. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mattisse, excuse for butting in, but there's a simply technique that often mitigation visual difficulties without technologies - hold the CTRL key and press the + keys 1-3 times; and if you go too far, use hold the CTRL key and press the - key to reduce the size. It changes the displayed size of both text and pictures, and I know this works for Internet Explorer, Firefox and Opera. --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I already do use that technique. It is a formating issue. The info is buried in a series of one line replies. When text is not formatted so important stuff is emphasized it is a forest and tress problem. Plus, the whole thread is confusing and doesn't make sense to me. Apparently, one is not really allowed to strike comments on an article talk but only as a courtesy. I don't understand what is being said. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have highlighted above a paragraph that is particularly important. It is better to try to understand this than whether there are rules for striking comments, and what they might be. One of the foundational principles of Wikipedia is Pillar Five and WP:IAR: rules are simply a tool to help editors improve the encyclopedia. Geometry guy 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your comment. --TIAYN (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your point - i've suggested an alt text. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Theleftorium 14:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I haven't been on-wiki much the past few days. I've responded here. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, thank you very much for finding a bad reference in Music of Minnesota. Two, however, of your taggings are wrong. Please take it easy. Why the sudden interest in this article? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the tagging was wrong. The information was not in the sources given. Has anyone gone through that article and checked the sources? I did not tag every mistake I saw. I am rather surprised at the low quality of sourcing in the article. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information was in the sources given both times. Pardon me while I remove myself from the wiki for the afternoon. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the two mistakes and I am glad that you removed the faulty source. As I said, I did not mark all the questionable sources; I merely did a spot check. I question whether there has been a good source check of the article. Even if one out of three is wrong, and I am sorry for that, the number is still too high. Help with source checking should be welcomed. I usually do not make mistakes so I apologize for that. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. No response necessary. Best wishes (as always). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much. I was not aware that things were so tense at the FAR for that article. I looked at the review page for that article and I see that it is very tense. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Mattisse, you may want to place a talkback on SusanLesch's page (or, better still, copy and paste your apology above onto her talkpage. That way, you'll be sure it's been seen. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done![2] Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick - thanks! (Also, FYI, I refactored the monitoring page entries because we need to use a certain format. Our brief discussion there has moved to the talk page.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse, this article which you reviewed for GA last year is currently at peer review. It was promoted to GA last November, and I'd like to see if it might be worth nominating for FA at some point. If you feel you would like to contribute to the peer review, I'd be very grateful for your feedback. On the other hand, I haven't forgotten that you swore to avoid the topic in future, and if you still feel that way about it, then please follow your feelings! Best, --JN466 22:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't normally copy edit or review articles for FA. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will date me, but I'd never heard of the lady before I got involved with Alejandro! :) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never had either, until I came across Lady Gaga in the GAN nominations . But I have learned that events move fast. The world is changing. There is a new generation, and they will be important to Wikipedia! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, there is a new alert about your remarks on choices for the featured article on 1st April at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts#April_Fool.27s_TFA_discussion. I must admit that I'm puzzled as to why you chose to frame your remarks in the way you did. If your broader point is that the article may not be well received by the general public (because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny) then why would you enter the discussion with this remark, directed as it is at an editor with whom you have had issues in the past. Reasonable people may agree with your later arguments if you make them reasonably but allegations that editors who frequent the FA page only care for their own 'chuckles' is both hardly likely to get your views heard and is, as well, extremely impolite. My suggestion is that you strike your entire set of remarks on that talk page and then, either make your point in a reasonable way, or withdraw yourself from the discussion. I have a further question to ask of you but will wait till this settles before asking it. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to strike my remarks but perhaps you could suggest a "reasonable" way to make my points. I find the suggestion of that article as an April Fool's joke objectionable because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny. How do you think I should word it? —mattisse (Talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "I don't like the idea of featuring this article because wife selling exists in other parts of the world and because it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny". (I'm using your words.) You don't have to strike your words, not much point in that. Perhaps a statement such as "I'm sorry that my posts above were not expressed in the right spirit of cooperation but I do think that, since wife selling exists in other parts of the world, it may be a sensitive topic that others may not find funny." Something like that. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks, —mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now please don't react to anything and keep your head down. You've expressed your view on the topic, let others express theirs. Now for my question. Are you deliberately trying to get in trouble? I can't imagine you consider your initial remark anything but aggressive and the remark about 'chuckles' anything but impolite. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, BTW, just to be on the safe side, I'm going to ban you from the WT:FAC page for 48 hours. Sorry, but gotta be done because you have the tendency to go off! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]