User talk:Mattisse/Archive 17

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_16) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_18)

Joann Peterson Cleanup Template - Request for Removal

You tagged this page Feb 2008 for cleanup. I have done an extensive revision of it now, with inline citations. Can the Cleanup Template be removed from the page now? Thanks. William Meyer (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand what you have done in this article regarding the footnotes. They are not working as they are supposed to and they have no page numbers to reference. You must have page numbers for anything that has pages. If you have the page numbers for each reference, I can help you figure out the format.

Just as an example of how the reference style you have chosen to use is supposed to work, look at Albert Speer. If you click a footnote in the article, you immediately jump down to the footnote section and the citation to that footnotes with the page numbers. If you click the link with the page numbers, you immediately jump to the Bibliography where all the information for the book is listed.

Do you see what I mean? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I appreciate your willingness to help.

I guess I'm not as smart as I thought. I had understood that the Harvard Reference form would jump to the Reference in question (and it could be to either something in "References" or in "Publications", and if the reference had a page number, then it would show in the body of the text of the article (as in the first footnote Wong and McKeen ... the citation jumps to the Wong and McKeen document, and the page reference is in the body of the paragraph itself). But maybe I'm really off base, and I'm not using this properly. I had understood (it appears "I MIS-understood") that I could use either the form of the Speers article, or the form that I used. To pull my part of the load, I'll study up what I can so that I am an intelligent student of what you want to show me.

Anyway, I'll study this further and try to bring myself up to speed on what you are showing me. I'll start with the Harvard References page, and begin reading. Any suggestions about Wiki pages to study?

I'll get back to you when I have looked into this further. Thanks again ... your positive attitude comes through your words. William Meyer (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

After I wrote the above, I discovered your helpful comments in my Talk Page. So, you have answered my question about where to look for information. I'll get to work. William Meyer (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never used the Harvard style in an article I have written, and I know many editors would not even attempt it. By looking at articles that use it, I have confidence you can figure it out. Otherwise, Wikipedia:Citation templates offers two easily implemented styles: Citation and cite xxx. Many people prefer the Citation template. The Harvard is good for an article with lots of references to the same few books, but on different page numbers. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I really appreciate your responsiveness. I have looked at the pages you recommended. Now, I have a decision to make .... to try to master the Harvard style, or to change to the Citation or cite xxx.

1. I understand about overlinking ... I'll fix it.

2. Page references ... I am missing some page references ... so, I'm working with what I have. But I understand that I should have them there if they are available.

3. The "look and feel" I want for the article is like the Harvard seems to produce ... jump the reader right down to the detailed description of the referenced material. I find the Speers article references overwhelming as a reader .... so, I wanted to have it "user-friendly" and attractive to the reader who really wanted to get at the footnoted references easily.

Q1 Can I get this reader-friendly "look and feel" with the Citation Template?

Q2Do you know offhand about any Harvard referenced articles that show me the proper way to fix the inadequacies in the Peterson article?

Many thanks. William Meyer (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was looking at Wikipedia:Citation templates and it says at the top: "If there is a possibility that Harvard referencing will be used in the article in future, consider using the Citation templates (second row for each source) for additional linking functionality with Template:Harvard citation. This linking from cite to reference does not work with the other templates shown below."

Maybe your problem has something to do with that. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm .... I think I was kind of cavalier in how I used the templates .... I noticed I was mixing a reference for a book and one for a newspaper, but it seemed to work, so I let it go. Anyway, it looks like my design needs to have considerably more basic consistency than I had applied. I'm humbled by this ... I thought I knew what I was doing. William Meyer (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Further ... I have re-read the Wikipedia:Citation templates after you pointed out the issue with Citation and future Harvard reference.

Do you think I can salvage what I have done in Harvard format by standardizing my Harvard references to the second row examples consistently. I would rather not start all over again ... I'd like to fix what I have. What do you think? Many thanks William Meyer (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albert Speer, if you read down far enough, there is this discussion:

• Comments: I believe there's something wrong with the Harvard referencing; the links in the citations do not seem to lead anywhere, when in fact they are supposed to link to the works under "Bibliography", yes? Also, per WP:DASH, dashes for page ranges in the citations need to be changed to en dashes. María (habla conmigo) 14:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• I just copied what was already in the article. Can someone point me in the right direction in fixing the refs? I'll fix the dashes after I fix the refs, just in case I totally have to redo the refs.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• Swapping the various {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates to {{citation}} seems to have solved the issue. - auburnpilot AuburnPilot

This leads me to think that you could salvage it as some of the books under publications are not using the citation template. Also, perhaps separating the References from the Publications has something to do with it. You do not have a list of clickable references as the Albert Speer article does. I tried putting {{reflist}} into your article, which usually generates the list of footnotes, but it didn't generate the list. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I will work on this tonight and try to get some clarity on it. I can certainly fix the obvious problems right away ... overlinking, and the use of Peterson's own material. I'll get back to you. Thanks again. I'm eager to get this fixed .... William Meyer (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I have tried to be proactive and fix what I can.

I have removed the "overlinks" regarding dates, and I have removed any footnotes that refer to Peterson writings.

Also, I have tracked down page references for most of the footnotes.

There are no Peterson writings in the "References" section now.

Now it behaves the way I thought Harvard references would do ... click on the footnote reference, and the reader is jumped to the information about the source.

What do you suggest now? Thanks for your help William Meyer (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I see the problem now. In Albert Speer, the editor has written the in-text references thus: <ref>{{Harvnb|van der Vat|1997|p=60.}}</ref>. He surrounds each one with <ref></ref> Whereas, you have written yous this way {{Harv |McNally|2002|p=2}}, If you format them with the <ref></ref> and add a footnotes section with {{reflist}} under it, it will work. I stuck them in the page and it works now! —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I feel so relieved to having this put right. I am working on several other articles, and I can now use the detailed instructions and corrections you have provided to set the articles right from the beginning. I am grateful for your spirit of cooperation, and your dogged determination to get to the bottom of things. It has been a pleasure working with you. Best wishes. William Meyer (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Slim harpo album.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Slim harpo album.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Mattisse, thanks heaps for taking the time to review Paid in Full (album). It's much appreciated! Spellcast (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It is an extremely good article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sagara Sanosuke

Thanks for the review!Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ADS references

Dear Matisse,

In the Astrophysics Data System discussion you say:

This article needs to have improved referencing

There are several sections that have no citations per WP:CITE of WP:RS. Is there someone watching this article that could fix this and update the article? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If you were to want to do this yourself I would be happy to help you. I note again that it is not proper for me to do this myself, I am the author of most of the papers which would need to be referenced. Also, I do not agree with all the statements made in the article, but it is an independent view of ADS, thus I make only very minor changes myself (such as changing the number of articles in the system from the old number 5 million to the new number 7 million).

If you post here the statements you think need referencing I will try to post supporting information. Most of the Wikipedia article is based on four articles we wrote for Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplements in 2000 and 2 articles in Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology in 2005, which are already referenced.

Best wishes,

Michael Kurtz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkurtz (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortuanately I know nothing about the topic. I was evaluating the article by minimum WP:FAC standards only. Looking at your user page, you have impressive credentials. Even so, I would be very uncomfortable entering information when I know nothing about the subject matter. Are there not others on Wikipedia who know about the subject and would be interested in the references you could provide? Have you tried to enlist other cooperative editors on the article talk page.? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am NOT an editor for Wikipedia, I do NOT view it as my role to write or organize this article. You have claimed it to be inadequately referenced; it is now YOUR responsibility to list those statements which you believe require better referencing. If you cannot cannot list instances where the article needs to be better referenced than you should withdraw your claim that is needs to be better referenced.

Michael Kurtz—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkurtz (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 October 2008

I did not tag the article. I merely noted on the talk page that it needs references. However, if you prefer, I will tag the parts of the article that need references. It is not my responsibility to provide those references. Rather, it is the editors of the article who should. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, this is exactly what was needed. While I do not agree that some of these points require a reference being specific allows one to fix or decide no fix is needed for each case. In the event that someone willing to fix the article reads this I will note that the dead links are all fixed by making the doi link be the link to the reference, as is preferred by the publisher. Mjkurtz

Actually Michael you are an editor for wikipedia, we all are. It is no more or less Mattisse's job to write or organize the article than it is yours, or anyone else's for that matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually NO I am NOT an editor, it would be ethically improper for me to make any major change to this article. Most of the article is someone else's description of what I wrote in the references; for me to put in the references, which would be to my own work, would be akin to my writing my own biographical entry. Mjkurtz

Well, technically you are an editor (as you are editing my talk page) but, as I understand it, you are saying that you have a conflict of interest and do not want to edit that article. I understand as I see your name in the references.

Even in this situation however, it is correct for you to post suggestions on the article talk page and even edit the article with care. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that an editor with a conflict of interest in articles can edit them with care. This ruling came in a case where an editor was putting in references to his own website in many articles as well as writing articles on his own businesses. (I thought his editing was problematic, to say the least, but the Wikipedia community over time has calmed down his over enthusiastic editing.) You are right; major changes would not be proper without consultation with other editors. But that does not mean a completely hands off position is necessary. For example, in Attachment theory, an author of one of the references, User:Jean Mercer, has edited the article. However, most of her interaction has occurred via the article talk page where she has offered information and advice for the other editor to implement and offered to email articles.

So there are shades and shades of ways editors with a conflict of interest can behave. However, I respect your strict concern to keep a distance, but you can make suggestions and offer information via the article talk page. Anyone can. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the cases where citations are needed it seems likely that they will be covered by "The NASA Astrophysics Data System: Overview" and its three companion articles, either that or the online FAQ, so it a fairly easy fix. You might consider looking at the Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines--Salix (talk): 21:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Although my father was a physicist, I know next to nothing about physics. I have read Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. Right now I am working on Major depressive disorder which would mean a major change in head set to think in the direction you are suggesting. I did try to redirect some dead links, and the same editor asked me to revert (which I did) because he said they were incorrect. I notice above that he suggested that I could use the "doi link be the link to the reference, as is preferred by the publisher" so I could investigate doing that. Maybe later I will follow up on your suggestions. Meanwhile, how about you doing it? It is an FA and if it just needs the few tweaks you are suggesting, you could do it in a few minutes. I would have to spend hours trying to figure it all out. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

My comment more directed at Mjkurtz. Like you I know v little of ADS, but it does look like a subject where much of the article will be covered by a few primary references.

MDD is look like a v good article. Good to see your working in your own field. --Salix (talk): 23:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Mjkurtz feels he can't do it. As he wrote above when he asked me to revert my edits: "Note that I would prefer not to do this myself, as we often point people to the Wikipedia article as an independent view of the ADS, which it would not be if I started writing it." So that is his reason. He also wrote above in answer to a comment by Malleus Fatuorum : "Actually NO I am NOT an editor, it would be ethically improper for me to make any major change to this article. Most of the article is someone else's description of what I wrote in the references; for me to put in the references, which would be to my own work, would be akin to my writing my own biographical entry."

I notified all the projects listed on the talk page. Maybe someone will fix it. I also told Mjkurtz that there would be nothing improper about interacting on the talk page. But I understand his ethics and understand why he does not want to do it. I fixed the dead links using the doi links. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So as to do my duty here are my suggested edits, I hope whoever actually does this will check, a couple of these references may not be what Matisse had in mind as what was needed.

I list a couple of words in the text near the reference request, followed by the suggested reference ref 1 etc refers to the existing references.

This is believed ref.1

ADS web-based service. ref 1

00 GB by 2007. no later info has been published

relevant field. ref 4

preprint was cited. http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/MAR07/Event/61837

installation on this platform. ref 4

Mirrors are located in Argentina, Brazil, China, Chile, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United Kingdom. http://doc.adsabs.harvard.edu/mirrors.html

Astronomical papers may cite and be cited by articles in journals which fall outside the scope of ADS, such as chemistry, maths or biology journals. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs_doc/journals1.html

Seven Sisters or Melotte 22.http://doc.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs_doc/help_pages/search.html#SIMBAD/NED/LPI/IAUC_Object_Names/Position

Her is converted to 'Herculis' while her is ignored. http://doc.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs_doc/help_pages/search.html#Stop_Words

ADS' synonym list was created manually, by grouping the list of words in the database according to similar meanings. ref 4

small fraction of this amount. ref 2

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkurtz (talk • contribs)

Astrophysics Data System - for reference so I don't always have to look it up. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

LCT FAC

		The Original Barnstar
		Matisse, thank you for your many contributions to LaRouche criminal trials, which helped to make it a Featured Article. Wikipedia is a better place because of your involvement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

GA reviews

Thanks for reviewing those two articles (and several before them). It's pretty hard to find a willing reviewer for wrestling articles, so I really appreciate it. And yes, I do devote far too much of my brainspace to wrestling storylines from 12-15 years ago. I suppose it's a sickness of sorts... GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale extraction

Hi, Mattisse. During the FAC discussion of the Oil shale extraction you made some very useful comments and proposals. Although the article was not promoted to the FA status, your review was a great help for improving the article. I am going to renominate this article after some improvements and I hope you agree to review this article again and help to bring it to the FA level. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

reverting vandals

Re Lake Baikal: please be more caeful with reverting vandals. `'Míkka>t 20:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. According to the diffs,[1] all I was reverting was: "hiCentre]] is an independent research organization carrying out environmental educational and research project at Lake Baikal.<ref> hiCentre]] is an independent research organization carrying out environmental educational and research project at Lake Baikal.<ref>" —Mattisse (Talk) 20:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being sufficiently clear. Please always look in the whole most recent history of the vandalized page, not just the very last edit. Quite often valdals are not alone or not satisfied with a single edit. In your case: [2]`'Míkka>t 20:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Burger King legal issues

I believe I have addressed your comments on the FAC. Could you review my changes and replies?

Thanks for commenting,

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I replied on the FAC review page. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Military dating

I think most of the Milhist/WP:SHIPS folks get a mite touchy when asked about the Military/European dating thing. It might come from having to deal with questions/reversions for so long (I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to revert good faith date changes to an article on an American ship for months or years), or it might be a peculiarity of the project. Either way it is odd to watch. I even asked about it in the GA review in an attempt to get some reasoning (having myself been forced to wear my hair short and write day-month-year in ships logs for years) and got a sort of curt answer. No playfulness. :) Ah well. Protonk (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, apparently they are touchy. My intent was not to annoy. Thanks for your explanation. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

MDD

Mattisse,

Don't "bow out". It's clear both you and Cas have wound each other up and are getting annoyed. Try to consider how much pressure Cas will be feeling, as FAC is a stressful place to be. But I also know it can be stressful to be the minority oppose, wondering why everyone else hasn't spotted the glaring WP:V violations and are changing their !votes. But it isn't a vote and you don't need to change the other reviewer's minds. Stick to commenting on the article (not the editors or the FAC process) and if you raise serious concerns then they will be taken seriously. Take a break, sure. But FAC needs expert reviewers. I hope you can interpret my review as "to the best that I'm able to judge this article, I think it's worthy of FA" but understand that I respect if experts say "well, actually, this and this aren't right, and that isn't totally accurate either..." Colin°^Talk 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Apparently now I am being personally attacked because I echoed the comments of User:Snowmanradio. I don't think I am the minority, except in the little circle of people who "wrote" the article, even though I have edited the article more than all but three others, only one of which is commenting on the article now. Attempting to improve a bad article is not worth being personally attacked. If you defend such behavior by Cas, as you call him, that is within your rights. But why don't you assume some good faith instead of lecturing me. I see by the last comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder that lecturing is in fashion, that improvements to the article by User:Snowmanradio are considered "edit warring". What a strange world is this FAC club. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way and hope you change your mind after a break. Understanding why Casliber might be frustrated enough to say what he said, isn't the same thing as defending what he said (I don't). I don't know why you think I don't "assume good faith" towards you. Why would I want to you continue participating if I thought your comments were made in bad faith? BTW: I assumed from Casliber's talk page that his first name was (or is shortened to) Cas. I don't know the guy and don't know any of the nominators other than Paul, who isn't exactly on my Christmas card list. Saying there is a "club" makes me feel you devalue my opinion as not independent and rationally based. Colin°^Talk 10:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Colin, I am frustrated also. Perhaps you will understand that. An example: you'll notice that my second question (after the question, "Can this be worded better"?) was Question - I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression,". Are you saying in the U.S. or where?

• Subsequently 18 entries were made in that thread under my question, many of them off topic, but including my request for a source, arguments that a primary source was better than the secondary review source as I was requesting, etc. My question was never answered, despite my repetition of my question half way down the thread: Back to my original Question: I am wondering about the accuracy of this statement: "The Beck Depression Inventory, is one of the most widely used tools in the diagnosis of depression". More non answers, ending with a slam at me, "Thaks for the non-asked for little speech." My question was still was not answered.
• When I finally enter an Oppose for now, "Cas" answers with "This is why I changed from "most widely to widely" as different sources say Hamilton or Beck. As I am familiar with the subject, in practice they are used as screening or in research,..." ("Cas" still does not give a source.)
• And later from "Cas": 'I changed the issues concerning Beck Depression scale in the article already WRT "most widely" to "widely" and the mention of diagnosis..." ("Cas" still does not give a source.)

• The same ignoring of my question resulted from my next question/comment:

• Comment Tony noted above his concerns about this statement: "A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith." Tony specifies his concerns: "I think this is oddly prominent in the rather short lead para to the section 'Psychological', and the Journal of Religion and Health, although published by Springer, is hardly a mainstream source in the field. The article is from 36 years ago; is it relevant nowadays?"
• This was also repeatedly ignored.
• (So I repeat my complaint.) My complaint has not been remedied regarding the placement of the statement on religion, which echoes the objection of User:Tony1 (" A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith." I think this is oddly prominent in the rather short lead para to the section "Psychological",) and User:Delldot's statement (I think it is his - hard to tell with all the interruptions and diversions) objecting to the inclusion of the religious statement in the first paragraph of "Psychological causes". To quote User:Delldot (or whomever) "A depressive episode may also be triggered by a loss of religious faith. - non-sequitur there, maybe would fit in with a list of events that can precipitate it (e.g. Vulnerability factors—namely early maternal loss...)."

• It continues to be ignored.

• Then I was accused by "Cas" of not giving specific complaints but being too general and not giving issues he could address. That was when I wrote an entry of several paragraphs about my frustration, as I was giving up on having these two specific issues addressed and certainly was not going to bother addressing the article further given this situation.

• "Cas's" reply: To Mattise - ...I think that casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack. I advise you to keep comments short, constructive and to the point and avoid making assumptions about others. Lengthy rants have the appearance of filibustering to disrupt this to make a point... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• My attempts at getting answers were obviously annoying to "Cas" but I do not think they are accurately characterized in his comments about me above. He assumed motivations on my part that were untrue that I was "set off" by his reversion of one of my edits. I do not think that my comments are accurately characterized as "casting aspersions on other established editors as lazy at best and dishonest at worst is bordering on a personal attack".

• Now, because of my echoing User:Snowmanradio rather mild comment (considering the frustration he must be feeling as so many of his suggestion were summarily dismissed by "Cas" until others began to agreed) that because over 25% of the article has been changed since those early supports rang in, perhaps these early supporters should revisit the article. The result is there are now comments like "so I had no COI when I voted. Some comments above almost seem accusive." I do not think anyone said anything about COI. I don't think making comments on others comments, like "almost accusive" or that personal attacks like that of "Cas" are conducive to inviting added comment if the further participate of editors is desired.
• I hope that there are not attempts to drive off User:Snowmanradio also. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum - I have been active on the article talk pages with similar futility. I have read the archived talk pages so I know exactly what was discussed in the writing of the article. I noted that sex differences were never discussed in the talk pages and needed to be addressed, including hormones (which User:Snowmanradio also suggested). "Cas's" reply was, well what do you expect as the editors are male. Apparently he is unwilling to examine sex differences. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion on the FAC talk page, of using the article talk page to discuss specific issues that become lengthy discussions, is a very good one. It is really difficult to edit a long FAC and follow long threads. If you create an article talk page section for each of the issues you want to discuss (Beck, Religious, etc) then each section can be discussed towards a satisfactory conclusion. Then, as Sandy suggests, the FAC can focus on just whether you think it meets the criteria, with a short explanation of why you think it doesn't. For example: "Found multiple places where text is not supported by the sources, see talk page sections X/Y/Z for details. I believe it fails 1c.". Then all that needs to be considered during the FAC is whether or when you think those issues have been resolved. I'm really not sure why those specific points have become so protracted.

I see that Garrondo and Casliber have apologised. I think some of the unresponsiveness you attribute to "futility" might be more due to folk like Casliber struggling to respond on sections he didn't write at a time which his internet access is dialup and not getting enough help from other editors. His comment at WT:MED suggests he's finding it a bit much.

BTW: the 25% figure comes from me and is the percentage of sentences that have been changed at all. Almost all those changes are copyedits and I don't think that percentage is particularly high for FAC. What surprises me most is how little text has been removed or added, which is much more common if the article was substantially deficient. Colin°^Talk 17:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. And I thank Garrondo and Casliber if they have apologized. I do think the percentage of change is irrelevant and the final product is the issue. I made many changes that may have been small in size but corrected important inaccuracies or meaningless wording that made the article seem amateurish. I have seen User:Snowmanradio make very good changes.

I do think the article came too soon to FAC without proper vetting. I am still very concerned that certain issues are not being addressed and there seems to be a national bias, (Australian?) with British literary overtones to the article, the insistence on Parker being in the lead is an example. Hopefully Casliber will address the simple quality issues that have already been brought up—for example quoting Freud within a quote from a third-party source, and not Freud directly.

I think that perhaps Casliber is in over his head and has taken on too much, especially if he has access problems with his computer. I have been through many FAC's with editors, most recently Albert Speer and the LaRouche criminal trials, in which the primary editors reacted to criticism with an open mind, calmly and responsively. They did not dismiss any criticism outright and did not argue. The FAC environment, even in the LaRouche criminal trials, where there were some frustrating and weighty Opposes did not degenerate into the atmosphere present in MDD.

I have not looked at MDD in the last few days, but I am not at all confident that it can become a true FAC at this point, like Bupropion (which I admire), or the two mentioned above. There are major unresolved issues that are not just a question of wording. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have finally found a better ref (after searching for 2 hours in google instead than pubmed) and this has led me to change the section. I feel it is much better right now, and anyway, it exactly matches sources. What do you think? Regarding my misconduct on personally attacking you I have already apologised elsewhere, but I want to say it personally to you. I also want to say that I have taken really seriously your concerns for the Beck thing, but I could not find sources no matter what I wrotte in pubmed.--Garrondo (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for your apology as I do appreciate it. Good for you for using Google instead of pubmed. Perhaps I will take a look later. Right now I am a little burned out on the whole thing. But thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Idries Shah

Hi Mattisse, I have revised the lede and the para breaks in Idries Shah. Any good? Best, Jayen466 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. The lead looks very good. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs updated. I've commented the Psychology Today paragraph out for the moment, pending verification, but hope to get a back issue from the publishers. Jayen466 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I'll take a look. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouting

Why are you shouting in edit comments and internal notes? It is really unneccessary. /skagedal^... 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I have been complaining about this for over two weeks, both on the FAC page and on the article talk pages, and have gotten nowhere. My complains have not been addressed, in fact, they have been completely ignored with no replies. Except, I was personally attacked for complaining about the misuse of primary sources in the Rating scale section. I am very frustrated at the way sources are used to mislead in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Date for FAC of Major depressive disorder

Hi Mattisse! I'm wondering what you meant with this comment. You provide a link to a version of the article, but how does that say that it is in FAC? As far as I know, FAC shouldn't even be mentioned in the article space, only listed at the talk page, where it was added the 19th: [3]... The FAC page was created on the 19th, so I don't understand what you're saying here... /skagedal^... 16:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the top of that October 14 version, it says "Currently a featured article candidate." That template appears when an article is listed for FAC, as you can tell by looking at any listed FAC. So, I am curious that the automatic template appeared on the October 14 version. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This text does not appear for me, not on the October 14 version, not on the current version, not on other articles listed at FAC, such as Primate. Only at the talk pages. Not sure what's going on here. So are you saying this appears on the October 14 version, but not on earlier versions? What changed on October 14? Just trying to understand here... :) /skagedal^... 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not have checked "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article. (documentation)" under Preferences > Gadgets > User interface gadgets. However, on the October 14 version, it first appears as "Currently a featured article candidate." —Mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that explains a lot. Useful tool! After having enabled this gadget, I see the text "Currently a featured article candidate" under the headline; however, I see it on all versions of the article, including the oldest available version from 2001. /skagedal^... 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Humm. You are right. I guess it gets transcluded to all versions. I am wrong. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok! :-) /skagedal^... 19:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On repeating yourself

Re: [4] – you've already said that, and it has nothing to do with the stylistic issue I was raising here.

On a similar note: on the FAC page, SandyGeorgia addressed you with: "Mattisse has multiple sections, which I consolidated earlier this week to six sections. None of Mattisse's past sections have been struck. If she will confirm that her 7th section summarized all previous and ongoing concerns, I will move the earlier six to talk and leave a link. Also, reviewers should strike or cap resolved concerns. You have not replied to this, instead you have started two new sections.

We all have the same goal of improving Wikipedia and covering the topic of depression in the best possible way. I admire your attention to detail, and I agree with many of the issues you have raised. But why not just simply state your objections, preferrably on just one place? I don't understand why you are so frustrated (as you have said). If your concerns are addressed, then you should strike the issue on FAC. If they are not addressed—well, they will stay there, not striked-out, for the FA director to take into account. /skagedal^... 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not have to repeat myself if my comments were directly answered. However, from the beginning my comments have either been ignored or argued with on the FAC page, or answered with a change in subject. I have been personally attacked by Calisber in a rant on the FAC page. I have participated in many FACs and never have my comments not been responded to directly and in a timely fashion. Any response in this FAC I have received has been off topic and not responsive to my comment. This FAC has been a totally different experience than any other. I do not know how to get responses to my comments. What do you suggest, given that my talk page and FAC comments are ignored? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. At the FAC page, if I take as an example the first bunch of your comments, those under "Mattisse 1"—all of those issues have been at least commented on by Casliber, most if not all of them seem resolved as well. Still, none of them have been marked as "done" by you, as WP:FAC reccommends: Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header [...]. Maybe that gives the impression that you will never be satisfied...? /skagedal^... 16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He has not addressed my comments. Mostly he changed the subject to something irrelevant. I am now the fourth largest contributor to the article because I fixed many things myself. However, Calisber never addressed them and still has not addressed most of them as far as I know. The talk page became so cluttered, that I cannot find by own comments anymore. But I think, if you go back through the page, refactored as it has been, and some personal attacks on me removed, you will not find under my comments a direct response for Calisber relevant to my comment. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I will go back through the page and strike any that he has addressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that! /skagedal^... 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have completed it for the most part now. So much was argued or not addressed directly, some was probably reworded for other reasons then my objections. At the time my objections did not result in the article change. But so much has been reworded since then for other reasons, that my complaints may have been taken care of for other reasons. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, I said this. You replied with this, clearly without reading what you replied to, as evidenced by this. Yes, Tony made that suggestion, go to the FAC page and search for Tony, you'll find it easily. Also here it looks like you are saying something to me that seems to be directed towards someone else. I have not said anything about WP:IAR or disregarded WP:MEDRS. /skagedal^... 23:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeezz, you mean a month ago? I don't fault myself for not remembering that! You guys are an irrational group of people! Thank god, none of my other FAC experiences have been like this. Today I gave my support on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faith Leech after having offered suggestions that were accepted—a much more typical experience. This Major depression disorder FAC has been horrible. I am not used to such unreasonableness. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not say you should have remembered that. I said it would have been nice if you had read what I wrote (today) before you replied (today). Whatever, I guess I'm irrational. Thank you for [5], apology accepted. Have a good weekend. /skagedal^... 00:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. And it would have been nice if I had been accorded some respect in reply to my suggestions. In a perfect world... —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, your signature is such that it just doesn't register. Sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping statement; apology requested

Your allegation, made on the MDD FAC,

I think this reason of "I owed Casliber this one" is a common reason for the "Supports" of this article.

is unspecific and made without supplying evidence. I am offended, as one of the supports, to have my review contribution diminished by this broad allegation. I request you strike that text and apologise. Colin°^Talk 17:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if anyone was offended. I was merely quoting from the last "Support". I think I am owed an apology for the multiple personal attacks on me by "Cas" and Cosmic Latte. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to take that up with them on their talk pages. However, your offending remarks have not been struck through. They will remain in the FAC archive long after your talk page is archived and forgotten. I repeat my request that you strike that text. Colin°^Talk 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has struck through their personal attacks against me. Although "Cas" apologized briefly for his worst rant against me, he has subsequently made more personal attacks against me and neither apologized or struck out. Why should this be a one way street? Why does not Cosmic Latte have to apologize for accusing me of making personal attacks and Ad hominem ?attacks? Your request seems strangely biased. Can you not be objective? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You wrote (on my talk page):

I am at a loss why you would take a quotation I made from the last support for Major depressive disorder personally. I know you have defended "Cas", but this seems a little off base. Why don't you do another one of those comparisons on how much the article has changed since its nomination. Me, Snowradio and SandyGeorgia are now the fourth, fifth and sixth highest contributors to the article.[6] Paul Gene, the third highest, has not contributed since the FAC nomination. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it personally because you took the quoted text and applied its apparent sentiments to the other editors who have supported, when you said it was "a common reason for the "Supports" of this article". Without naming (and shaming, if you like) those specific editors you suspect of bias, you tar us all with the same brush. I would like you to remove the tar, please.

I repeat that I haven't "defended "Cas"" and didn't/don't. As I explained earlier, trying to understand someone's behaviour is not the same as agreeing with their behaviour.

As for your comment about others not apologising, that's no excuse for not behaving honourably yourself. You ask "can you not be objective?". Well, if one of them had offended me, I'd be on their talk page too. They haven't. I think you feel that me criticising you for making offending remarks should be balanced by doing the same for the others. The difference here is I'm only interested in any remarks that offended me. What you guys say about each other isn't my concern. Colin°^Talk 18:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

All the subsequent attacks on me were for personally attacking the particular editor who made that comment. You seem to be the only editor who takes it personally and generalized the comment beyond that particular editor's "Support". You are alone in that, so perhaps you are being a bit oversensitive. I already apologized to "anyone who was offended" so that includes you. I think you are going overboard in your defense of "Cas" here. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I misinterpreting that sentence? To me it reads "Many editors who support this article do so at least partly because they owe Casliber a favour." You were the one who generalised it with the words "common" and "supports". I'm not trying to help or defend Casliber. Stop bringing him into this. You made a sweeping allegation. Retract it please. Colin°^Talk 19:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record Mattisse, I interpret what you said the same way Colin does. /skagedal^... 19:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't take you guys seriously anymore! This must be all a joke. Wow. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, given that you've mentioned a few times about you being attacked by me - [7][8][9][10] and being 'driven off' [11]. I am curious, which diffs do you consider to be personal attacks? Please supply them, and we can discuss them, or please just stop referring to it/them. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is one: [12] It was moved to the talk page by someone. I will look for the other where you called me "spiteful". Here it is: [13] Here is another time you tore into me: [14] All I am trying to do is improve the article to FAC. More than you, Cosmic Latte has contributed to disparaging me, using edit summaries like "yawn" [15], [16] in responding to my comments and making disparaging comments about me on the FAC. Then you have Moni3 and Ottava Rimi going on rants (humorous actually, I did have a chuckle!) on SandyGeorgia's page about how awful I am. (These were generally driven by Cosmic Latte's comments about me on the FAC.) They would not have done that if there were not a general atmosphere of contempt for me.

As I said above, I have participated in many FACs, (eg Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Faith Leech yesterday where my suggestions were treated with respect and I registered a "Support"). Never have I been treated the way I have on the Major depressive disorder FAC by you and Cosmic Latte. In any case, I refuse to be intimidated by such treatment. I will not be driven off. I may decide not to continue as I did once before, prompting your "spiteful" comment about me. If I leave it will be again, it will be because I feel too disgusted to continue, not because of any attempts to drive me off. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Funny that, I could say the same (above never before encountering this sort of behaviour at an FAC). Do you have any idea of your role in this or how your edits look to others? Could you please go back and re-read your comments before each of mine and see what led up to them? None of mine talk about the person but the behaviour:

• In, this one, look at he post immediately above it. My point remains the same, this is a volunteer project and thus no-one is beholden to do anything for anyone else, so a pleasant diversion of mine is not relevant, and your criticism of it and tone thereof was uncalled for. Do you not see that?

• If you look at your original comments on Mattisse 1, you will note I answered them all quickly at the time, although some I couldn't/can't do or explained. I fail to see where you get the idea that specific objections were ignored - discussed yes, cogitated over yes, but not ignored.

• The "spiteful" comment made by me I suspect you are referring to (again about behaviour not the person), comes under Mattisse 8 on the FAC. It relates to the previous post of November 14 directly above it, and I stand by it. You have participated here, you decided not to strike anything at the time as (I suspect) you were angry, regardless of whether done or not.

Clearer now? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. I originally assumed the article was well referenced. It was only when I started to look closer that I was startled to find all the mistakes. I have crossed out all of the issues you have taken care of, but the rest remain outstanding. Yes, my experience at your FAC is quite different from any I have experienced. Not only the ugly comments, but I have never not had my comments addressed in the past. This is a whole new experience. An eye opener. I assumed too much about the quality of the article initially. Sorry! It has been disillusioning, as is you continued behavior now, as well as Cosmic Latte. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And you continue to dodge the question. Your behaviour which led to this. Tell me, is it appropriate to dictate to me how I spend time here as you did above? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You know perfectly well that the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder was disgusting. I have enough respect for you to believe that you know that perfectly well and are not proud of what happened there. I cannot accept that you condone the behavior of your comrade, Cosmic Latte. I don't think you are an idiot, at least I am leaving the question open. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And you know perfectly well that you were the first to bring acrimony into the whole process, yet you cling to this belief that it has all "happened to you". Can you not look at the diffs from the early part?? I am not commenting about Cosmic in this thread so please do not change the subject. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I also continue to think that if someone nominates a FAC, they should have the decency to remain current with it, which you did not do. Since you seem distracted by articles and DYK's in the middle of (theoretically) your FAC, I have evolved the hypothesis that you have ADD. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Remain current? Erm, a large chunk of my edits since it started have been related to the article since this started (plus chasing sources off-wiki and some frustrating stuffing around in a hospital library). I would be amused if anyone else shared your opinion that I had not "remained current", almost as much as the suggestion I have ADD. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

Right, here is the sequence of interactions from the beginning of the FAC until the time of Eusebeus support (it took me 2 hours to look through these). Timeline shows you started this:

• here you join in with some comments.

• [17] here I reply 28 minutes later, agreeing with both, and then notifying I had reworded 4 hours later.

• here you make a suggestion which I believe we took up

• here I concede your point on Kent and this has been hard to find.

• here you highlight prose, which I answered here and tried to fix up but was tricky.

• here I think you misinterpret me, I didn't say I was going to use the word conjectural and I try and clarify...

• here you make a suggestion, and here I agree with you

The next few diffs we talk about rating scales, and you say this which is odd as the extra ref I got you just removed and I replaced (???)

In the middle, PMID crashed

here you raise some good points, which have been very tricky to thresh out with good secondary sources, and I do concede we did not get on the religion issue sooner, but it is frustrating for me to see it frequently talked about yet insanely hard to cite, until I (finally) found one on google after juggling a bit

• here you mak a note of primary sources, I concede it has taken time to whittle them out

• here you list some, I kept you updated 2 hours later

• here we are back to religion again but the mood is still good as far as I can see; I am having no problem at this stage.

In between, Garrondo notes the 'non-asked for little speech'

• ...and here it starts. Note I do not/did not have a problem with paras 1-10, though was taken aback by "Further, I am shocked (naive as I am) that anyone would register a "Support" for this article on an important topic without carefully reading it through."

• here I begin explaining and trying to address.

• here you pull me up on nihilism (which is actually mentioned in some psych textbooks, but you were right in that it wasn't the right word. Still you are starting to get bitey here. And here I concede the point.

• here you chime in and repeat yourself again and complain about points not being addressed. This speech was uncalled for and quite threatening. There was material cropping up which I was dealing with steadily, and had dealt with some of your by this time. As I said, some refs were elusive.

• here I am staying calm and positive

• ....and here you go again - ironically, you complain of page length and decide to question other editors' supports.

• Meanwhile others are attempting to address concerns still

• here I make a measured comment as by this stage I am becoming worn out by your previous comments and I say that "reams of self-righteous invective and feeling like I am being held to ransom." was pretty much what your comments felt like to me.

• [18] you apologise here

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder&diff=next&oldid=249520639 here I try and show my appreciation and note the points you have mentioned are valid.

• and here...um...you come out of the blue again

• So here I try and wave an olive branch.

• here you rejoin in a more constructive/neutral way

• and here is a pretty drastic comment but I do concede added in a neutral manner.

• here you sort of half offer to help...and here I try to show my appreciation.

• here is a thankyou from you.

• but here you decide not to look uin your book and qualify with a rather exaggerated and inaccurate statement about references.

Friendly question

Must you use ALL CAPS in edit summaries? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will not use all caps. However, in the past my internal comments have been ignored and removed without any comment. This time I am actually getting a response for the first time!!! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, all right. Sorry for the duplicate message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I preferred caps... they are easier to search for: anyway I think they are a good idea. I'll try to search for as many secondary sources as I can. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthropod GA review

As far as I can see nothing's happened since 3 Nov. Do we have a misunderstanding about whose move it is? --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you addressed all the issues I listed? A quite scan of the article suggests many have not been addressed, and you do not say on the GA review page, eg. the white space issues. I have done some copy editing but not through the entire article. I will add more comments on the review page. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, and for being willing to take on such a big article. --Philcha (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. The article deserves GA and you have obviously put a great deal of work into it. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Art Deco

This article is listed for GAN, and I would appreciate it if you could do a review of it. If you have time, do you think you'd be able to? Thanks in advance, Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume the reviewer who signed up on the GAN page is not doing the review? I can do it, if that is the case. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't look like they got round to it. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be unable to edit fro a few weeks due to exams and, to top it all, I will not have any internet access for a while. Is there any chance you could fix Art Deco up according to your review, and then get another independent reviewer to go through the article, so as to avoid violating the WP:GAN policy? Thanks in advance, Elucidate ^{(light up)} 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You can withdraw the nomination. Would you like me to do that for you? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Answering your inline commented question. WP:CITE#HOW says...

Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

The help desk is usually a good place to ask such questions. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I gather that it is not all right to mix harvard with {{Citation}}? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you mean {{Harvnb}} and {{Citation}}; they go together rather nicely. The no-no is to mix {{Citation}} and {{Cite}}. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's not how I read the guidelines. To me it indicates that only a single format should be used within an article. Please elaborate, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it seems inconsistent. I knew they often are used together when the footnotes in the body were {{Harvnb}} and the full list of publications in the Bibliography or References are in {{citation}} style. But with {{citation}} mixed into the article body, the publications are also listed in the Bibliography, but the full information is again given in the footnote itself. I didn't know that it is ok in the article body to have some of the citations with {{Harvnb}}, hopping to the Bibliography and while those using {{citation}} do not. Therefore, some listings in the Bibliography never get "hopped" to, while others do. It seems to me less than optimal and inconsistent for an FAC. (Personal opinion.) Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think for FAC that might be flagged as a problem. The best solution IMO is to always put published sources (books, journals) into the bibliography section and only use the {{Citation}} template in the body of the article for things like web sources. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess I will take your suggestion and go to the help desk! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus's suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Using one consistent method in the body and another for the bibliography seems to make sense. Most of the references in the body will probably be web links. Those in the bibliography will, by definition, be offline publications and might benefit from a different format. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) Yes it does. But the FAC Major depressive disorder uses some {{Harvnb}} and some {{citation}} in the body of the article, resulting in the "hop to" inconsistency described above, even though the Feature article criteria state: "2(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended)."

Seems clear, but you never know! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Mattisse. I appreciate your assistance in dealing with that edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

Thanks for the help on Lockdown (2008). I did not notice the overlinking problems and I had no idea what to link to instead of disambiguity pages.--WillC 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you did a copyedit(?) to the above article, is it possible to do the same for Over the Edge (1999).--S_RX 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SRX, maybe later. Your article already looks very good! And it is about an interesting event. What are your goals for the article? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My goal is for it to be promoted as an FA. It is currently under peer review.--S_RX 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks good and I will run through the article. Since Lockdown (2008) has just entered FAC, I am not sure how the FAC people will regard another wrestling article so soon. Watch what happens there so you can see what their reaction is. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I will wait for that one to either be archived or wait for until it is in the bottom 5. About a month ago, there were 3 FAC's at the same time, which fed up the reviewers, only one passed. But I have experience with FAC, I contributed to helping pass SummerSlam (2003) and No Way Out (2004) to FA. OTE is unique from others due to the nature surrounding it, hopefully that can be seen at FAC.--S_RX 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't have time? =-)--TRU_CO 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Okay, I haven't really read the full MOS page, I have a short attention span and can't sit still for as long as it will take to read that entire thing. Thanks for the help. Also I'm not sure Sacrifice (2008) should be italicised. I believe there is a rule against that. I don't have the link for it, but I believe pay-per-view events such as Sacrifice do not fall under the category to have italics.--WillC 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the italics, as I saw it was not in italics at other places. The link I sent you basically says wikilink as little as possible. Only wikilink once to any given word. Do not wikilink common words that an English speaking person would know, not even countries that most people know. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the professional wrestling has had a problem with overlinking. I myself don't know when I've overlinked or not. I tend to try to figure out what would be quick reference and what isn't so I know. I linked Sacrifice twice in the aftermath because I believed the template fell under quick reference. I still have a long way to go before I know exactly what I'm doing on here. Almost been a year and I'm still learning, wikipedia is funny like that.--WillC 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have your talk page on my watchlist. If you want to reply here, I'll know. Every page I edit becomes automatically watched.--WillC 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. FAC is very difficult. I will try and help you out, but I don't know anything about wrestling, although I havecopy edited a few wrestling articles for GA. Also, I'm not sure how the FAC people will regard a wrestling article, if they think wrestling is a good enough topic for FA. I don't want to discourage you, but just prepare yourself. Is there a wrestling editor that can help you out with the FAC? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry dude, I don't really need any help. I'm mainly the only one who works on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling articles. I've worked on all 12 of their 2008 ppvs alone. I tend to work alone. Most of the time people want me to follow their example. I don't like that. I would rather follow the criteria and learn on my own. Me and a few editors from the project have disagreements on how many matches should be in the background. I think all that got enough attention that a good paragraph can be made while they disagree. Though some feed back on the prose would be nice. That has worried me. Been working on Lockdown since May of this year. It is all starting to sound the same.--WillC 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can go through it for prose issues. The FAC people will also point things out. I noticed one of them pointed out WP:ACCESS issues in an edit summary. Unfortunately, I could not tell what she meant, even after reading the WP:ACCESS page! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that GaryColemanFan helped you out. He is very good on wrestling. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he helped me with the GA review when the article was much larger. I don't have a problem with him, he agrees with me on the background problems. I've never heard of WP:ACCESS. I saw it and went, another article I'm going to have to read. I don't have much time in real life. That is why there are so many MOS problems. I really need to learn to sit still and read that page.--WillC 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the article, but I could not tell what was wrong with your article by the description given there. Basically, it is saying that article elements have to be in a certain order so that screen readers can read them. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It doesn't matter much to me what is changed, as long as I get it to FA. I've worked on the thing long enough and went to hell and back to get it to sound right. FA is the reward for all the hard work from May. I still have 11 more to go.--WillC 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For all your hard work on helping fix Lockdown during its FAC. You deserve this.WillC 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• You are very kind. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it is the least I can do for you helping me out.--WillC 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Faith Leech

Hello Mattisse, I have repsonded to your concerns. Thanks, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And some more. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Way out of line comment

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is out of line, but sadly all too common these days, is an administrator threatening a punitive block almost eight hours after the alleged offence, contrary to wikipedia's blocking policy. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for you comment to me, Malleus. The FAC crowd is tiresome. There was a long self-righteous rant against me on the FAC talk page, and a whole title "Mattise" on SandyGeorgia's talk page, asking her to please stop me from opposing that FAC. The result is a casual disregard for the truth in the article. The standards of FAC when it is submitted by one of their "own" are low - I have never been very tolerant of hypocrisy. Consider this a statement of my current bitterness. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article, and I have no intention of getting involved with it, but it will be for SandyG to weigh the arguments put forwards both for and against its promotion. It's not something worth inviting a block over either way. Although administrators aren't supposed to issue punitive blocks, many of them do under one pretext or another, and from personal experience I can tell you that being blocked won't do much for your temper. Time to leave this one behind you now I think. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Casliber knew it was a joke anyway. 07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha) But do I still have to worry about a block from this guy? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Who knows? Administrators are only human, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, and don't always look at all of the evidence before they act. I suggest ignoring it, the administrator, the MDD article, its FAC, and all those whose comments stung you, and get on with something else. You'll always be outgunned in a dispute with anyone who has their finger on the block button. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of admin threat of block for joke comment made to Casliber on my talk page, I will not be responding to any more Casliber posts on my page - Casliber, do not post on my page again

Because of a joking comment I made to User:Casliber on my own talk page:

This comment was completely inappropriate. Any repetition of that kind of thing will result in a block. Consider yourself lucky I've not blocked you now. --Dweller (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• From ANI:

07:30, 23 November 2008 Casliber (Talk | contribs) (46,441 bytes) (hahaha) Indeed it looks like he realized it was a joke, so I don't think this is worth all the fuss.[19]

I will not be responding to any more comments to Casliber because of the fear of being blocked. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The ANI thread says the block warning was unwarranted and it is a fuss over nothing. [20]

• [21]
• [22]

• Please note that neither CharlotteWeb nor Looie496 is an administrator, however, I and Gwen Gale [23] are administrators who believe such warning was proper. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm not a sysop but I would say that that comment deserved a warning, but not a threat of an immediate block. However, no personal attacks are allowed. _David^WS _(contribs) 20:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

His saying my comments were a joke does not matter, I guess, even though he harassed me on my user page and my "attack" was made there. He wanted me blocked because I voted "Oppose" on his FAC. I did not report his personal attacks on me. Admins do not block for me or protect me in any way, because I do not hobnob with admins. Although I am currently #147 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits I do not receive help from admins when I request it.

I have learned never ask for help or blocks when I am personally attacked. I was harassed by a group of sock puppets for six months and I was the one that got blocked. It was only by going through arbitration that the sock puppets were caught; the admins defended the sock puppets and punished me until the arbitration shut the sock puppets down. Well, I will merely contribute with less pleasure and joy to the project. This is why so many article contributors become bitter. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have editcountitis. Admins don't really care about editcount, they'll help anyone the same amount. What happened with the sockpuppets? Did you "yell" at them back? If so, then you both should've been blocked. You have to be civil... _David^WS _(contribs) 21:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have editcountitis now because that is all I have to cling to now. I know admins do not care about contributors and mine are in the article mainspace and not enough time on talk pages and voting for RFAs. No, I didn't "yell" at them, even when one told me to take a razor and stick up my ass. Mostly I was stalked and my articles were vandalized, redirected within 30 seconds of creation, that kind of thing. This was the sock puppet ring: Category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati.

I had a couple 3-RR blocks before I understood that any edit counted for 3-RR; I thought I was just fixing my articles. When someone put a sock puppet tag on my user page, I reverted it; that editor complained to an admin. I was blocked until an ANI discussion was concluded in my favor. There are still articles of mine that were merged arbitrarily without discussion. I believe I got blocked for trying to have a discussion over the merge, as it was hard for me to believe that an admin didn't care about the merge rules. Now I don't write articles anymore. Since the sock puppet thing, I haven't had any trouble or blocks until now - this threat. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Stress

Dear Mattisse, I have tried to write this note several times, but the words are not coming to me easily. You are a respected, passionate editor. Please don't allow these recent events to hurt you. You have my respect and trust. This whole business has blown-up out of all proportion. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder FAC restarted

Note to all !voters on the original Major depressive disorder FAC: The FAC for that article has been restarted at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Major_depressive_disorder. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cosmic Latte, you are canvasing. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right, I'm canvassing for support by sending the note to all !voters, including you, who opposed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You know perfectly well no one has the nerve to "Oppose". It is a set up. The references are still out of date. Nothing to be proud of. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am a major contributor now. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor review

Thanks for the review. As you might have anticipated, I disagree with the bulk of what you said, but thank you for taking the time to review me, anyway. I have responded to the questions you left for me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Request

Mattisse, I am so sorry that you have to put up with disrespectful users. Someone suggested that I nominate Puerto Rican scientists and inventors for "FL". I was wondering if you could please look it over and tell me what you think and if you have any suggestions. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you put a lot of hard work into it. I will have to bone up on featured lists, as I know nothing about them at all. Tomorrow, O.K.? —Mattisse (Talk) 03:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, take it easy and don't worry too much about my request, I'm not too much interested in the "FL" anyways. I'm a little hesitant to nominate any of my articles with the way things are handled here anyway. I can't tell you to not be discouraged with things here, just try to go back to basics, to what attracted you to Wikipedia in the first place. I remember last year when my admin powers were taken away and some people made some disrespectful remarks. I felt like hanging it up, but I put in too much into this project to leave. I told myself, to hell with everybody else and what they think, my mission here is to educate and share my knowledge. I know that my work has received international recognition and that is why I could care less if my articles are featured or not. I went back to doing what I enjoyed doing in Wikipedia in the first place. Don't let the those who act like children, who are making a big deal over an issue which should have been forgotten already get the better part of you and go back to the basics. What ever you decide I'm with you. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony, thank you so much for your post. It touched my heart and put the situation in perspective. You are right about maintaining a focus on what is truly important, and to avoid being caught up in the detracting negativity. I did used to enjoy Wikipedia, mainly when I was writing my own articles, so I have to discover a way to enjoy it again and have a mission greater than what others here think is important. You have been able to keep your wonderful, productive attitude that has enabled you to continue to do your constructive work. I will seek to follow your example. You have brightened my outlook by your honesty. Thank you! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK noms

Hey Mattisse, thanks for your comment at WT:DYK. I share your concern about keeping the DYK process from becoming too intimidating...I'm hoping that if we decide to design a template we can make it easy enough to be friendly for nominators, but still robust enough that reviewers won't have to clean up after a lot. I've left an example of what I'm thinking at the DYK talk page, so if you have any input I would really appreciate it. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I only just started doing DYK a little less than a month ago, so I don't have much to compare it to...but I think nowadays it's the process for reviewing nominations is pretty well-organized. To the best of my knowledge, no one has deleted a nom recently without it getting looked at (and if they have, they will be yelled at once someone finds out), although sometimes boring noms get left til the last minute before being reviewed. The discussion page at WT:DYK is a little chaotic and I don't go there much, but the nominations page seems decent to me...while I don't know what the specific rules are, there are a lot of de facto checks in place (for example, if I reject a nomination for something, I generally have to wait for someone else to actually delete it...people would look down their noses at me if I deleted the same noms I criticized, or if I promoted the same noms I verified...that way it's ensured that at least two people look at every nomination before action is taken on it).

When were your last submissions (the ones that were ignored)? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My last one was in September 2008, so it has been awhile. I does seem more organized there now. I must admit, I also lost interest completely in writing articles. Almost all of my DYK's were from articles I wrote, so I can't blame it all on DYK! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments

Mattisse, I feel that you are doing your various causes an injustice at the FAC talk page. For example, fact-checking FACs is an excellent idea and it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that something like this is necessary by fact-checking a selection of articles. However, on Wikipedia you have to choose your battles. If you mention every single thing that you think is wrong with FAC and tie it directly to one article, your case will be less convincing than if you gather data from numerous articles and present your ideas for change slowly over time. Pick your moments. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I know you are well-meaning and I think highly of you. However, I have no desire to "prove" myself to FAC. Quite the opposite. I dislike FAC intensely. I will choose what I want to do there on my own terms. I do not want to be "liked" by FAC. It would feel odd to be treated with anything other than the familiar FAC hostility to which I have become accustomed. If I want to feel good, I go over to GA. Or copy edit for appreciative editors. FAC is not a feel good place. I guess you could say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." And, just in case Dweller is lurking, I am quoting so hopefully I will not be blocked for profanity. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you know that they had to pay extra money to say that word in Gone With the Wind? I believe it was $300. Awadewit (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, please understand that you are a valuable reviewer at FAC; you routinely identify issues with articles that other reviewers might miss and regularly help to improve articles to meet the FAC criteria. I respect your contributions to the process, and I know that many others do as well. I hope that you continue to be one of the quality reviewers. However, sometimes your comments do not come across well, and that can undermine how your points are received. If you could keep your comments at FAC centered on the criteria and the article, without making judgement statements or any statements directed at the nominators or other reviewers, then it is more likely that you will get a good response, and less likely for the FAC to degenerate into something that makes you, or others, uncomfortable (and also less likely that you would get any further warnings for incivility). Most of the regular reviewers don't feel that there is any regular "hostility" from FAC - from what I have seen, part of why you feel that way is because your comments are often very hostile as well. I would encourage you to take a long look at your own contributions and how they might have been interpreted by others, and see if you can continue your excellent reviews in a slightly more civil manner. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. Constructive criticism is what we all want and need at FAC (it's hard to earn a "support" from me). Next time I post a candidate article to FAC I want you and others to pick it to bits, because I want it to be the best it can be. I think this can be (and usually is) done in an atmosphere of colleagiality and with good nature, and with both sides prepared to listen / accept the others' arguments. I'd like to think my comments and opposes are done in this manner (feel free to check my contrib history as nominator or responder). FAC reviewers are an endangered species - I'd be sad if you chose not to continue reviewing. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

To Dweller. Thanks for your response. Perhaps I misunderstood your actions. However, to say that I should have been blocked without warning for an admitted joke goes a little too far. Even if it was not obviously meant as a joke, it was a mild comment made on my own talk page in an attempt to lighten the atmosphere where I was facing an onslaught of posting from Casliber and friends. Your comment and threat were out of line, in my opinion. For that reason, I will stay clear of you. Sorry! But as Malleus Fatuorum, this is typical of the regular admin abuse of productive editors. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to make them. I know that you are trying to be of help to me and I have only good feelings toward you and your contributions. However, I did not get any "warnings for incivility". You are not characterizing the incident correctly. I make a joke on my own talk page, to try to lighten the atmosphere under the barrage of postings Casliber was making on my page. He recognized it was a joke, as brought out on AN/I. However, he used that comment to try to get me blocked for a "personal attack".

There is no incentive for me to change my FAC behavior. I have no respect for FAC. As I said (above) to Awadewit, who had similar suggestions: "I have no desire to "prove" myself to FAC. Quite the opposite. I dislike FAC intensely. I will choose what I want to do there on my own terms. I do not want to be "liked" by FAC. It would feel odd to be treated with anything other than the familiar FAC hostility to which I have become accustomed."

I won't go into why I feel hostility to FAC, but its does not stem from the hostility I receive. I recognize the hostility comes from my attitude, and I am not intimidated by it for the most part. When I see an FAC article being supported out of favoritism, usually I keep my mouth shut. Major depressive disorder happens to involve my profession and I did not refrain from commenting on gross inaccuracies in my own field of expertise.

My relationships with 99% of other editors (100% of those outside FAC) are cordial. I have no "incivility" problem. I would consider it demeaning to be part of the cozy FAC personal welfare club. I prefer the hostility. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have no respect for FAC and are not interested in changing it, I suggest you cease participating. Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi matisse

I asked you a question here. Hope you don't mind... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind. Actually, I have been trying to find your question, using search "Ling.Nut". —Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I linked to it, above... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Rath

On 27 December 2007 you added an entry on the Rath disambiguation page that read:

"rath (Hindu) - a Hindu temple carved out of living rock resembling a chariot"

I didn't find any references to this. Could this be a confusion with the building of the Rath Yatra chariots at the temples? Could you provide a citation of this usage? Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. That is very considerate of you! December 2007 was a year ago, following a period when I had been writing many articles on India, Indian architecture, Indian temples etc. I think I know what temple complex is meant in that reference. I would not have added a red link to a dismbig page, so apparently the article or section I linked there has been deleted or merged. I would have to get up to speed and go through my Indian books to clearly resolve the issue. So I would recommend just deleting it, as I no longer create, maintain, or follow-up any articles on India, including my own. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

From looking at the disambig page further, it looks like the articles referring to the use of the term in India have been deleted, as those red links used to to to articles. I would recommend just deleting those links. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials

Thanks for your note. I've emailed the user to ask what's going on. I thought this dispute had been resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

LD 08's FAC

Thanks for supporting the article and the kind words, but something inside me says to have your vote withdrawn from the decision. Mainly because you performed that giant copyedit. I believe that with all the edits you did to the article, that your vote doesn't seem to count. You have done the second top most edits to the article. I believe there is a rule against that. You have significantly contributed to the article, and for some reason (I guess wanting to follow the rules) I don't think your vote should be accepted. Nothing against you, it just doesn't seem right to me. I could be wrong, but I just thought to tell you that.--WillC 04:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I will disclose that I was a major copy editor in my support. Would that be alright? I do not want you to feel my support is less than sincere, nor that it does not refliect my admiration for the article. My work was just clean up copy editing, having nothing to do with content. May articles are heavily edited by copy editors, so that is not unusual. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your decision. If you want to state that in the FAC then go ahead. I'm really speechless for some reason. I don't really have anything to say. If you knew me in real life, then you would understand that is strange.--WillC 04:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article deserves to be supported. I do not readily support articles, and certainly not because I have copy edited them. If the article truly does not deserve a support, I believe opposes will follow. That is what usually happens with a misapplied support. Please accept my vote as genuine. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, and thanks. The first article I ever wrote, first I took to GAN, my first GA, the first I took to FAC, and could be my first FA. I just guess I want to make sure it passes because it deserves to pass. Thanks for the support and for the copyedit.--WillC 05:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Buckingham Palace

Please don't jump into discussions where you have nothing to offer but sneers.[24] Count to ten or something. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Bishonen | talk 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

A curiously one-sided observation.[25] --Malleus Fatuorum 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, do you think so? That post wasn't there when I wrote the above, so curiously enough I didn't comment on it, no. Nor had Utgard Loki's removal happened. (Which I have since commented on.[26]) Altogether, if I had known things would move that fast, I probably wouldn't have spoken. Though I'm not sorry I did; Matisse remains the only contributor to the thread who posts a note that contains nothing but sneering—no comment on any actual reason for picking one image over another. Anyway, I guess I'm too slow for these situations. A pity you feel you must extend the battleground. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

It's a pity that you seem to find it difficult to be even-handed in your criticism, or even recognise the need for it. I see no warning on Giano's page for his personal attack on Mattisse, for instance. Or is it your view that two wrongs make a right? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano actually blanked most of Buckingham Palace[27] to "prove" something to me, as he said on the talk page[28] in response to a comment I made about references. User:Risker had to revert the article[29] with the suggestion on the talk page that Giano allow others to edit the article to prevent charges of WP:OWN.[30] —Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Here you are then Matisse, a major contributor to the page like yourself should have the last say [31]. Giano (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano's ownership of these kinds of articles is legendary. He though, unlike you or I, is immune from administrator warnings or blocks. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

<-(outdent) Mattisse, I say this with all sincerity and decorum: walk away. Right now, the sniping and back and forth gain you and Giano nothing. From my point of view, it appears you are doing nothing but baiting him right now. Please, with all the sincerity written words can convey, walk away. spryde | talk 19:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. It is amazing though, how a long time admin editor gets a free pass for his behaviour, whereas newer editors are expected to rise above the fray. Says a lot about wikipedia. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Just a few things though: 1. He isn't an admin. 2. He has dealt with a LOT of trolling/baiting lately and even though you did have good intentions, it isn't the best time to be doing this looking at all the drama going on lately. spryde | talk 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He sees everything as trolling and baiting. By not engaging in a genuine interaction with other editors, he promotes frustration in others, thereby encouraging bad behavior. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain you're bright enough to see the way the wind is blowing here Mattisse. If you had called Giano a troll you would have been accused of a personal attack, warned, and then shortly afterwards blocked if you didn't recant. When he calls you a troll, that's OK, because he's been under a lot of stress recently. Just the way it is around here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I do see. Strangely, I find myself getting rewarded for being irritating. (Which is not the way it should be, do you agree?) Being a productive, friendly editor has become drudgery; this was not true until recently. My personality is changing. I feel negative and have little motivation to feel anything other than that. I should go back to doing GAs, only that has been taken over by someone's classroom exercise! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Risker/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Mattisse

Incisive questions. I think it would be fair to the candidate and helpful to others reading, if you could illustrate your first question with a specific diff or diffs. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment above about negativity, etc. Even if its title is inaccurate for you, can I humbly recommend my essay: User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors --Dweller (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some diffs in response to your request. However, since Risker did not answer my questions posted his/her talk page, I do not expect them to be answered now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rocko's Modern Life

I'm tempted to close this as a withdrawn GAN since it's been open nearly 2 months and nobody wants to touch it. What think? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew it as a GAN upon the editor's request, as I had edited the article too much and did not know enough about the subject to fix the article's problems. It looks like I forgot to remove the hold on the article talk page. The nominator said he would renominate it and I think he did, as I thought I saw it on GAN.

In any event, if it is on hold because of me, then I forgot to remove the "hold" on November 2 when I withdrew from the article. What is the best way to handle this? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see no sign that it was renominated, so I removed the template. Then I reverted myself, as I realized that was not correct procedure. Do you know how to handle all that so the GA1 ends up in the article history? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Joy

 Marlith (Talk)  has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

 Marlith (Talk)  04:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

for me

• [32] A notebook about power and how truth can be distorted by those who "run things". (memories are made of this) —Mattisse (Talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• [33] - Arbcom - more memories!
• [34] - ANI block is unwarranted
• [35] - have a look in my archives, courtesy of??!
• [36], [37], [38]RFA - Wehwalt - wow - remember this one!!

• [39] - cutting you loose, you t---

---

• [40] - FAC quid pro quo! This is in response to Sandy Dearest's attempt to sabatogue an RFA for an innocent posting of mine. [41], [42], [43]RFA - Wehwalt

• [44] a quid pro quo for SG
• [45] dear Maralia throws bestirs the fires.
• [46] I'm SO upset!
• [47] This was wrong - MF
• [48] OR insight?
• [49] OR wikilawyering
• [50] don't forget the plethora of emails - this is so all will be transparent

Req help in GA Review

Hi Mattisse. Thanks for the second opinion on the Save Our Children GAN page. I was hoping that you could have another look at it so that it can be wrapped up. \ / (⁂) 09:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could get others to look at the article. Some of the sources are biased and I just don't want to get involved further. Sorry! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you had endorsed at least one summary in the prior Request for Comment, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have had no further involvement with that user since the first RFC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OR

I appreciate your comment at hte AN/I report I opened on OR; but ignoring the situation by a widening pool of editors results in a wider berth for OR to take root and expand, affecting more editors and articles. That's not the best result. Eventually this all will come to a head, the sooner the better. ThuranX (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I will reply on your page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

Thanks for your great help to get the article featured! Close reading and find all the thinking errors creaped out of my head into the text was a great help! Next time I will try to think two times befor typing.--Stone (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are extremely welcome! And congratulations! I'm so glad it make FA. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Chinese Wooden Architecture

Hey Mattisse - I'm trying to tidy up the prose a little at Ancient Chinese wooden architecture. Great article by the way. I was wondering if you might be able to shed some light on a sentence in the foundations section - at the end of the paragraph it said "Introduction of whitewashed alled , painted pottery." - I've commented it out for now - any idea what the intended meaning might have been. Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest in the article, as I had become discouraged by some of the additions to it. I have several good books from which I was drawing information for the article. As far as I remember, I would not have added anything about whitewash or painted pottery. I was interested strictly in the "wooden architecture" part, as China has a long and interesting history of wooden architecture and developed its own forms. The article was meant to counter the purely western view and terminology with which Chinese architecture is usually described. I will look at the article soon and see what you are doing! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it was on my watchlist - I interceded on the talk page at the time and made a note to give it a bit of a brush up. Such early codification and the pattern books were a real eye opener to me, absolutely fascinating. I wonder if we can find a few more images to replace the now perhaps over-used Yingzao Fashi. I thought some of the Dougong might be good, but there's nothing on that page that's definitely within your time period - it would be nice to see some extant examples, if any survive. As a personal preference, I usually use 'timber' rather than 'wood' when referring to it's use in buildings. Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am so glad you are interested! The Chinese were/are amazing. I will start looking around again and see what if there is anything new. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown

Yeah, SRX did, he has watched the article since I first began. He gave thoughts on it when it was under peer review before GA and before Lockdown's first FAC. We've had discussions over it for begin long and too in-depth since I began. So for him to support it does mean it is good, which I like. I see it passing as well, I just wonder how much longer the review will stay open. No one besides me has edited the page for four days. But I'll wait, I have other stuff to work on. I have around 52 ppvs to work on, and 12 of those are from this year. Thanks for supporting it, I can't say that enough. Not to sound weird or anything but it gave me hope that it would pass.--WillC 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That's good, now I'll know what an FA is and learn from my mistakes with other articles I plan to take to FAC. Thanks for the help as well. When/if it passes you can, if you want, add one of those FA boxes saying you help get it there, if that is okay to do since you supported it.--WillC 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

see

since this will be removed soon. 59.91.253.89 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reply: [51], [52]. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Massie Trial

Hey, Mattisse. Long time no talk. I was wondering if you had any interest in the Massie Trial article. It needs a lot of help, and it seems to touch on some of the topics you are familiar with, in particular legal issues. It's fine if you have no interest, but if you do, there's a lot of sources on the subject. Let me know. I should also mention that the entire article needs to be rewritten. Talk to you soon. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am interested if you have some good sources. I would welcome something new to work on. It is unclear from the article what is unusual about the actual facts of the case. Most of the article is unreferenced and the whole thing needs rewriting. Depending on the nature of the references you have, it could either be a legally interesting case (if you have legal references) or interesting because it was made into a movie. (A couple of the links are dead on the page.) —Mattisse (Talk) 21:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I've got a list of the best sources around here somewhere. Let me try to find them. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved some to Talk:Massie Trial/temp, but these are the most popular sources, not necessarily the best. You know, Google books has a huge number of sources on this topic, especially legal sources. I'm trying to add them to the temp page for you. But, there's enough to keep you busy on GBooks (and scholar) for a while. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Although editorials probably shouldn't be used as sources, here's a good summary of the case to get you up to speed: [53]. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, turns out this great editorial is based on a conference paper, so I'll try adding the original source to the list. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sell v. United States

What do you suggest we do with the citation needed? Once we remove that, I would say it's pretty close to a GA. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the article in a while and I see a lot has been done to it, not all with which I agree. I think I could clean up the prose fairly easily. As far as the tag, is that for "Other issues raised at trial included accusations of Dr. Sell use of politically incorrect swear words."? If so, I would say that whether or not Dr. Sell used politically incorrect swear words is trivial to the case and so that statement can be removed if there is no reference for it. I am sure all the important points are referenced.

How nice that you think of the article for GA! I have never nominated any of my articles for anything so it probably would be good for me to go through that experience. I would certainly support you. Maybe this would get me back on the track of writing articles again, as I have grown discouraged. Maybe we could be a term! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plant! :-) Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sell v. United States may take a little work - broken links and such - plus some scrutiny of the info, since it has been a while and I found a good new article. Maybe a day, then I can start on the other one you suggested. Legal stuff will be a relief to work on! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. I'm going to do some work on Amaranthus brownii tonight, and try to at least get it ready for GA. It's already had a peer review, but there are some outstanding issues. If you are interested in taking a look at that as well, feel free. Have a great day, and I look forward to more collaboration. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Tomorrow, as I am about out of steam tonight! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to explaining to me. Docku: What up? 22:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the contributor

Most of the following originally posted to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

Enough already, Mattisse. It has become clear that you dislike SandyGeorgia. That's fine and dandy, as this isn't a utopia of rainbows and butterflies, but your incessant underhanded comments, insults and smack talk which provide no evidence of anything need to cease. SandyGeorgia does a great deal of work improving this project and keeping the FAC process running smoothly, and your behavior is becoming disruptive. Comment on content, not the contributor. If you have beef with Sandy, try mediation (and bring diffs), else let it go. It's not worth a block. لennavecia 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Answered on Malleus talk page, a final tribute to block happy admins. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm block-happy. :/ Another example of your ignorance. This is exactly what Sandy is talking about. Provide some evidence to back up your claims, or stop making them. What does your comment with the link to my notebook even mean? I have no idea, and I don't care. You're trashing other editors, and this isn't a situation of Sandy making a situation about her. You bring her up and make negative comments about her. Just knock it off and go do something else. Your comments are not constructive and they serve no useful purpose. It's disruptive, and your attempts to turn this around to make me out as an admin with an itchy block finger or warning in response to some link I'd not even seen aren't going to work. So, again, take your dispute through DR or let it go. لennavecia 15:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Isn't commenting on my ignorance commenting on the contributor and not the content? It was through reading your talk page, the language there shocking to me at first, that I learned all sorts of things could be said without punishment—in fact such things I thought were forbidden were actually were encouraged. Mistakenly, thought it applied to all. But I realize that Malleus is right in everything he has been saying. Frankly, I had been thinking he was exaggerating a tad and making too much of admin abuse via blocking. But you are driving home his point. Admins get away with out right personal attacks as happened to me on a FAC; the only consequence was that his personal attack was moved to the talk page. The rest of us are up to the whim of those that can block, just as Malleus says. Now I totally agree with him. Thanks again for proving my point. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad we got this all straightened out. So, you'll not be making anymore personal attacks against Sandy and you won't be getting blocked. Good times. لennavecia 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

your answer is up

here it is. Thanks for asking! --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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

DYK

Hey Mattisse,

I don't know about all of the changes, especially compared with how thing were when you used to be a big DYK contributor (since I wasn't around yet!), but regarding the issues that have been coming up about article length/expansion over the past couple days, this really has less to do with DYK changes and more with Ottava Rima wanting to pick fights. Other than that user, no one has had any complaints about the expansion rules since I've started working at DYK (in fact, most times that I've had to reject an article that wasn't expanded enough, the users have been understanding and have thanked me and moved on to get GA and stuff like that)—one of that user's hooks a few days ago did not meet the 5x expansion rule, and ever since then he has been causing disruptions and threatening multiple editors, as well as the DYK project in general, trying to get them to change the rules to suit him. There is nothing to worry about as far as DYK as a whole is concerned, because this user will not go through with any of his threats and his comments at DYK carry very little weight among DYK regulars. I expect that within a few days, once this user has moved on to something else, the arguing over length/expansion details will pretty much stop.

As for splitting hairs...again, I don't know much about how DYK was in the past, but you are right that there is a lot of splitting hairs going on—I know that I, particularly, am a bit nit-picker, and some nominators have gotten frustrated with that. But I like to think that usually when I split hairs over little things (like if the expansion was a tiny bit too short, or the refs aren't formatted right) I'm giving the nominator a chance to fix those things, rather than outright rejecting the nomination over a nitpicky detail...I usually split hairs like that in order to get the nomination up to a good standard before putting it on the main page, not to get rid of the nomination. That is at least the philosophy I try to work by; of course, I'm not perfect, and I may have sometimes rejected a nom that I probably should have worked with a little more to rescue, but that's just my fault and not DYKs.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a little. If you have any more questions, don't hesitate to shoot me a message...and, of course, don't hesitate to leave any comments or suggestions about DYK because, as you know, I always value your input. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Politizer! I have enormous confidence in you, and the examples above that you give of your behavior of "splitting hairs" I don't count in that category at all. Rather, those are perfectly legitimate requests that promote quality to editors. (Formatting refs need to be taught - I try to take the same attitude in GA. I've also noticed that now editors get a "notice" that their hook needs fixing, which is a nice gesture; it was always something I tried to remember to check when I had a DYK in queue!) The length issue has never been a problem at DKY, in my memory, so I was surprised to see it suddenly such an flash point. I worry that there is too much emphasis on "collecting" DYks and that too much is being made of being on the "main page". But that is just me, I guess, as I thought of DTKs as for the "little guy" in many ways, as it is attainable for many who may never have an FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 06:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I wasn't really trying to take a dig at him, me and him have had probelms over the article for a while. Plus I feel the only reason he said he would oppose is because he wanted his way. I felt I was being accurate but I've let that be and I'm fixing his probelms with it now.WillC 19:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear that! Didn't mean to imply I thought he was correct, as I don't know one way or the other. Just that the FAC page is not the place to resolve lingering issues with him. It took a while for your FAC to get "eyes". His comment brings attention to your FAC. Even if you disagree with him, it is important that he has taken an interest in the article and his removal of his "Oppose" will have the effect (almost) of another Support. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is "my level"? ayematthew ✡ 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Now lets not all have a fight. Lets put this behind us, thank you for your comments iMatthew.WillC 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) My apologies to IMatthew! My comment was unfortunately worded and directed to the response, rather than to your comment, wanting to stress the importance of neutrally worded responses in an FAC. I have changed the wording in my post above to reflect my intentions more clearly. I apologize to you for any misunderstanding/miswording of my comments. In reality, I know nothing about the subject matter, nor do I have any opinion regarding the merits of your suggestions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Journal sources and GAs

Mattisse, thanks a lot for your support over at DYK. On an unrelated note, I was just wondering... I'm working on slowly expanding the Neurolinguistics article, keeping GA in the back of my mind, but I'm concerned over the fact that right now almost all of my sources are from within the neurolinguistics literature—journal articles and chapters of edited volumes, rather than like reader-friendly intros and websites. (I can't blame anyone else for that; they're all sources that I put in the article, since the article didn't have sources when I first started working on it.) So one concern is that most of the refs are offline; I might be able to alleviate that by tracking down links to at least the free previews of most of these articles, but that still leaves the other problem, which is that they are not really "mainstream," and some reviewers might consider them primary sources. I guess at some point I can do some googling and just look for random websites to add to the sources, but it's hard for me to trust any of that stuff since this is what I study and these sources are the literature I'm most familiar with. At some point I think I'll need to grab some non-specialist editor and ask him/her to help me out by reading through the article and telling me what parts are too jargon-y or otherwise not clear. In the meantime, though, I was just wondering if you could clarify for me how much of a problem the current sources are (or will be, whenever this eventually goes to GAN). Thanks, —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm looking at it now and checking out the references. This is not an area I have expertise in, but it looks legitimate. I put the citation bot on it, so the doi links will make examining the references easier and also finding new ones. Happy to help you out on this, as I have been distracted by various shenanigans of late and appreciate something else to focus on! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the citation bot's edit; thanks for that! That completed in one fell swoop about 75% of what I thought I was gonna have to slave over for hours! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)