User talk:Mattisse/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_11) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_13)

Wujing Zongyao

Sure, information about the Wujing Zongyao should be incorporated into the Song Dynasty article. I think a couple sentences would do it justice.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural writings??? I'm not sure what you're talking about, enlighten me.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh those! Yes, I placed those pictures in the Architecture of the Song Dynasty article. And although I snapped the pictures with my camera from Needham's book, you do realize those drawings are not by Needham? They are actually 900 year old, drawn during the Song Dynasty in the published book by Li Jie.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. With all the material I've written for the Architecture of the Song Dynasty article, I got sort of lazy and realized what I'd have to write if I made an entirely new article on the Yingzao Fashi. Plus, I'm working on Augustus right now and getting it up to FA status eventually.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you could start the article if you want to. It is a free encyclopedia afterall. Lol. I'll look over it once you've created it. Use the existing information in the Architecture of the Song Dynasty article, only reword it so it is not the exact same entry.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

I blocked you? I thought I only had protected your userpage. There's no indication in your block log that I blocked you. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that I was dealing with sockpuppets at the time. Thanks for informing me. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly chat

Mattisse, I want to share this with you because I believe that you are a highly educated person with whom I can converse. I have written many articles outside of Wikipedia. I wrote a magazine version of "Hispanic Americans in World War II" (Where I am allowed of expressing myself more freely) several months ago before attempting the Wiki version. I guess it shows in the several kinks. I am trying to create an awareness similar to those that the African Americans have did. Hell, when I was in school, I truly believed that minorities had never contributed anything to the United States. Anyway, I want to share (I hope that you don't mind) some of the acclaim of the original article with you.

1. Senator K. McClintock, President of the Puerto Rican Senate:

"Tony, I'll send a copy of your article to Rafael Aragunde, Secretary of Education. We are preparing two short documentaries at the Visitors Center, one about the Capitol complex and the second about Puerto Rico's role in national defense, that will be shown at a 30-seat theater within the Visitors Center. Your article can become an attractive (visually and content-wise) handout at the vets' work station within the Visitors Center lobby."

2. John Varela, office of Congressman Jose Serrano:

"Tony You’ve outdone yourself again. Your exposure of the Hispanic efforts/contributions during times of war can only be described as superb. The fact that most believe that hispanics were spectators during Americas call to service is proof positive that there is no finish line and your good works must continue to soldier on. Your writings confirm what the pentagon has repeatedly said, mainly that Hispanics are true patriots and wrap themselves in her flag and charge forward. The leaves of many a foreign land dripped with the blood of our hispanic brethren."

3. "Somos Primos” editor Mimi Lozano:

“I will have it under Military, but promote it under Hispanic Heritage Month. I will suggest that they download the whole series and use in the classrooms of Texas.”

4.Maria Elena - Educator -Texas:

“What a wonderful article! It is awesome. And of course, I was very impressed with the role of women in the military. I plan to read more on this subject. I recognize some of the names in the stories, San Antonio has some of these heroes. I am taking your article to our next group meeting to share with my friends (some who are teachers). When we discuss WWII, in class I want to include some of your stories-- the known heroes and those that just served. Many of our students have family members in the military and I want them to understand that we need to honor all Hispanics. It is your stories that have made me more aware of the contributions of Hispanics in the military. I understand the need to include this as part our study on WWII.”

5.Rafael Ojeda-Defend the Honor-Seattle, Wash.

“Mi Estimado Amigo Tony, Mil gracias! For all of your efforts and contributions to Somos Primos. I sure appreciate you sending me this report. I have already saved it in my computer and printed a copy. I will be meeting with my co-hart Nettie Alvarez the next few days to set up our agenda for the August 2 meeting with Mr. Mohler. So again Thank you for all of your help and dedication. God Bless you and keep up the great work. We need more like you, to help us "Set the record straight".

6. Willis Papillion -Willis was with the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. but at this time is in the state of Washington.

“After reading this month's issue of Somos Primos, and in particular the article on Hispanics in WWII and their US Armed Forces Awards, by; Tony Santiago. I'm ashamed To admit my ignorance about the MIGHTY role of Hispanics military fighters, in protecting our American freedom! Also, it questions, whether many Americans are aware of the heroic actions of Hispanic fighting men! What needs to happen is for Mr. Santiago to submit his articles to; National American Legion, Magazine and the United States Navy League, Magazine-ETC!” “You need to start sending it to the major Military and magazines of Color. Plus, Newsweek, US News& World Report and Time. In addition to the major National Universities!”

7. “El Boricua” editor - Ivonne

“I glanced over the article and it looks great, fantastic - you are certainly an accomplished writer. I will read it carefully over the weekend. Yes, I want to publish it - anything coming from you is worthy - sight unseen.”

May be I'm a nut case, but who knows what impact if any the article will have. By the way, thanks a lot for all of your suggestions and help. Tony the Marine 19:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks, I could use the help, I have already taken care of a lot. He must understand that Brazillians are not considered "Hispanics" in accordance to the U.S. definition (They speak Portuguise), they are however considered "Latinos" or "Latin" because they come from "Latin-America". You go figure. Tony the Marine 23:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already "marked" the issues that I have taken care of. I have to take my wife to the supermarket for a couple of minutes. There isn't much left, but I would really appreciate your help. Tony the Marine 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have made a lot of changes and I realized that it was worth it. I hope that you will reconsider your vote, but if you don't it'll be O.K. with me. After all your suggestions did help make the article a better one then it was. Cheers! Tony the Marine 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the compliment. But I couldn't have done it without you. It was your noticing and informing me of the matching active/inactive patterns that cinched the case, I believe. IPSOS (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this user is way too obvious to be the same individual. Already back as Kremm. From what I discovered when looking into 999 was that s/he was much more devious than that. Care to help with reverting Kremm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) attempts to disrupt an AfD? It can be incredibly theraputic. :-D IPSOS (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, once there is actually a decision on the reports, it's a lot easier to show that an obvious sock is, well obvious, by pointing to the report. Until there has been a conclusion, it's unfortunately hard to get anybody to take a sock infestation seriously, no matter how bloody obvious they are. IPSOS (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page, as another interested party had replied there. IPSOS (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where I need your help

I'm gald that you asked. User Anon..., is drowning in a case of water with the term of "Hispanics". I'm trying to explain that the term is simply applied to those who origins or whose ancesters come from a Spanish speaking country and therefore nor Brazilians, Haitians or the people from Surinam, for example are considered Hispanics. The word itself is dirived from the term "Hispano" which means Spanish speaking. He insists that all people form South America are Hispanics. He is based on this: [1], but what he fails to realize is that when they mention "South America" what they mean is South American countries of Hispanic origin. According to "El Boricua": "Latin America is a geographic location. People from Latin America are all Latin but not all are Hispanics. Brazilians speak Portuguese, which makes them Latin but not Hispanic." [2]

I did some google research and found out that Brazilian do not consider themselves Hispanics:[3]

Even the Europeans are clear as to what term is supposed to difine: [4]

I want to try to avoid a debate, it would only open the doors to others who may not understand and it would not be in the best interest of the FAC. I know that you have a better way with words and I was wondering if you would be kind enough to try to explain to him what the term reffers to. Maybe in his talk page. I would really appreciate it. Tony the Marine 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you do make sense. Even the government is confused as to what they mean by the term that they have created. When I joined the Marines, you were either White, Black or Asian. It was kind of confussing because when I returned to the states 20 years later, I was suddenly told that I was a "Hispanic" and somehow I was no longer white, dispite the fact that my family are blond blue eyed and that the term is supposed to refer to an ethnicity which includes all races. That is why when I fill out a form which asks "Race?", I write "Human". Tony the Marine 20:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, what an overhaul. I think that I am done and that all concerns have now been covered. Tony the Marine 22:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, images are supposed to be set at default? You got me there. That is one thing I know nothing about (really). Cheers! Tony the Marine 23:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be my guest and do it. Tony the Marine 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 23 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yingzao Fashi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 23:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Cool! But it was you who nominated it, so it is yours. As for the books, which ones specifically? Are you sure you're talking about actual books, or journal articles? Like Guo Qinghua's work, his is not a book, it is a journal article. The Needham citations are certainly from his book, which I own. Steinhardt is used, both her journal article and her book. I got the journal information from an online database. Are you familiar with JSTOR?

Take care.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Check out what I've done to Augustus, it is also now an FAC.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, using JSTOR has certainly helped my edits in a number of wiki articles. I don't know if you need to copyedit Augustus; I think there is already an experienced copy-editor, User:Casliber, who is on the job. Lol. Feel free to copy-edit if you like, though. Or object or support the article. Or just give some advice. Any one of those.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

Thanks for your continued contributions. They're appreciated. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

en dashes --> hyphens

As far as I remember, all of the en dashes, except for the year ranges, need to be converted to hyphens. Tony 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I would also like to thank you for all of your help. The complete overhaul of the FAC is complete and I hope that I now merit your "support" on the FAC. Believe me that I am sincere when I tell you that one of the pleasures that I have received in this whole thing has been interacting with you. Even though my time for major contributions are now limited, I hope that you won't mind if once in a while I drop in on you when I need a second opinion. Cheers! Tony the Marine 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Comment, thank you once more. I took your advice, as always. You have a great way of communicating things (smile). Tony the Marine 19:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image:RobertJohson.png

Its use in "Hellhound on My Trail" appeared decorative (WP:NFCC#8). If you disagree, please add a couple of sentences to the rationale explaining why it is a necessary addition to that article. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is owned by a rather litigious blues historian who vigorously defends a questionable 1989 copyright [5], so I am not inclined to push for a wide usage without any sort of license. It may seem mindless, but I assure you that between copyright law and Wikipedia policy, there are many considerations to satisfy (four US fair use criteria, 10 NFCC, etc.). I don't know what kind of affirmation you are looking for, but if you want to leave this place because of a minor image issue, now may be a good time to step back, relax, and look at the big picture. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you allow it in a general article on the blues? It certainly is less necessary there. The article on him here at wonderful Wikipedia even says that he had little effect on the blues, that his effect was on rock music. I am disgusted. Mattisse 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment call. You disagreed, I did not object. Still disgusted? Unfortunate, but my decision was an attempt at a reasonable compromise, it shouldn't be a cause for righteous indignation on your part. Frankly, I doubt that a decent basis for usage exists for any article other than Robert Johnson (musician). ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great thinking! That is the article that is the most irresponsibly written and improperly sourced. Makes sense at Wikipedia! Mattisse 23:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the funhouse. If you have any questions about image use policy, I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. If you just want to vent, I have better things to do. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The asia time source

I though they made a mistake to take the disputed area as the whole name of South Tibet.In fact,the whole Tibet or Tibetan Plateau is divided into 4 parts North Tibet,South Tibet,East Tibet and West Tibet.South Tibet also includes some large city such as Shigatse.The Asia Time journalist may mistranlate the chinese diplomatic words.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 17:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the Shannan Prefecture which is part of South Tibet and it covers the disputed land,but much larger.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the sources themselves dont agree.Following what I had read such,I mean South Tibet as a larger region as well as North Tibet is the best interpretation.Meanwhile,the disputed land also falls into the coverage of South Tibet.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check these link [6]Shigatse,a town far from the disputed land is also within the South Tibet.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I don't have any idea what, "Talk pages are for opinions and such. A talk page is not a substitute for the article" means, but your continued admonitions to "(unindent) Read the article" are blatantly uncivil and hostile, so I am removing this remark from Talk:South Tibet.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 18:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article rather than using comments on the talk page as a substitute

Comments on the talk page are not a substitute for reading the article. Regards,--Mattisse 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem rather wound up. Please calm down. Regards, --Mattisse 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to tell, but I imagine this section is supposed to be in response to me. It's true that I am feeling a bit wound up, and the reason for this is simply that having content disputes with people who are either unwilling or unable to discuss them in a cogent fashion and who are at the same time arrogant and insulting about it is extremely frustrating, and the fact that this is necessary is highly detrimental to Wikipedia. However, in addition to recommending for me to calm down, you may wish to examine your own behaviour in this situation.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all I have done is take the article South Tibet off my watchlist as I do not waste my time with such situations. Perhaps you should do the same. Regards, --Mattisse 20:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is a very reasonable response. Doing so would resolve my sense of personal frustration. However, the overall result of resolving content disputes this way would be even more detrimental to the functioning of Wikipedia.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MW

Are you upset with me over the Missing Wikipedians page? If so, I'm sorry. The reason that "rule" (and it isn't even a hard and fast rule, because this isn't on the mainspace) exists is so there will be some standard ensuring the page won't get unmanageably long or too full of users who made only a few edits. I personally think 1000 edits is a fair standard, I'm sorry you disagree.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it's unfair to blame me for that rule. I didn't come up with it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reality there is not a "rule". You have taken it upon yourself to enforce something according to your whim. The page is not "too long" and the emotional effect of an editor on the community may not be synonymous will number of edits. User:Timmy12's leaving certainly had an effect not related to number of edits. Ask User:Salix alba who was upset and User:BostonMA who left partially as a result. And I would guess the other editors with too few edits had an effect also. For the length of time Wikipedia has been going on, the page is amazingly short. --Mattisse 00:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing trip

Both JMax555 and SynergeticMaggot are, to my knowledge, unique individuals. I have no suspicion that they might be sockpuppets. Really, I don't want to get involved in your hunt to right past wrongs or whatever. That seems pointless. If there is a problem in an article and it looks like sockpuppetry, then I do something about it. I'm sorry, but hunting for puppets when there is no particular problem to be addressed seems disruptive to me. IPSOS (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is idle speculation like before when I posted on your page regarding this. I have no problems of my own. I will refrain from keeping an eye out and spare you my musings and not post on your page in the future. Regards, --Mattisse 01:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There! You are off my watchlist. So, goodbye! Regards, --Mattisse 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cuchullain - Are you going to be fair about the Missing Wikipedia list - or are you going to let User:IPSOS break your rules but not allow me to do so?

How is it that individual people are allowed to unilaterally remove names from the list when there are no firm inclusion criteria other than that the person has actually left? I really do not understand. The people I added were involved in a traumatic siltation that involved many editors. I believe these persons should be remembered as my heart is still heavy over their loss. Regards, --Mattisse 01:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had a question for me, you should have inquired at my talk page. The 1000 edits thing is not something I just made up, it reflects a very long standing consensus on maintaining the page, and was being used as a standard criteria before I even discovered MW. At any rate, it's certainly not worth edit warring over.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. IPSOS (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of edit warring. I do not engage in those. That is the first revert I have ever reverted. I don't intend to do it again. --Mattisse 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that I was just followng User:Cuchullain's rules in removing names. Your actions are at odds with his. I will seek clarification from others. --Mattisse 02:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit request

Hi Mattisse, I've been working on the article Economy of ancient Tamil country for a while now. The article recently had a peer-review, where one of the comments was to make the prose flow tighter and fix possible copyedit problems. I tried to fix some of it myself, but an expert hand is really needed now. I request you to help with the prose and other issues in the article, when you get a chance. It would also be great if you could leave your comments about what else is needed to make it an FA. Thanks. Lotlil 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, thanks a lot for offering to help. I would like to take this to FAC, so yes please scrutinize it appropriately. I think your time will be best utilised if you could fix any prose and flow issues with the article. I will address any content issues. The peer-review (esp. from User:Taxman) has a few prose suggestions, that would be a good start. Thanks again. Lotlil 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, about the sources section: the intention was to indicate what the primary sources are. The article itself is sourced from history books and papers written by modern-day scholars, which per WP:PSTS are reliable secondary sources. These authors, in turn, have used archaeological and epigraphic sources, in addition to the ancient literature to make their claims. I was asked to write a section on such primary sources, in the peer review. Would it help to rename the section as Primary sources? Lotlil 20:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I am confused here. Primary sources are not considered sources, I don't believe, per WP:V and WP:RS. Also, having such a long section on sources at the beginning detracts from the subject of your article. Since the sources article is so long, it almost suggests that there should be a sub article. There is a link in the article (I can't find it now!) that goes to something-something-poetry (or maybe it was literature). Anyway, is this an article on literature or on history?

Don't get distressed at my comments, because if you do go for FAC, it is a grueling and humbling process! (They will be very critical.) I am not sure what you mean by "Tamil country". Is there not a more specific name? Do you mean country as in "city vs. country", or do you mean country as in "nation". I have not heard that term before. Is that a commonly used term? The link to Tamil people is not very helpful because it makes Tamil seem multinational, not necessarily related to a specific area of India. Maybe you can straighten me out here. Regards, --Mattisse 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, really appreciate your time on the article, I see it's getting a much needed critique. I think we should continue further discussions on the article talk page. I posted my response to your concerns over there. Thanks Lotlil 22:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MW

It's not my decision, it's everyone's, I just happen to have worked on the page the most. I repeat, the 1,000 edits "rule" is emphatically not mine, it was around before my time. It's just an arbitrary standard to make sure the list doesn't become far too long and full of only minor contributors. As for "undue prejudice", I really don't care about appearances here, I just remove names when I see them if they have under 1000 edits, or were banned, or have returned, etc., and every once in a while me or someone else goes through and weeds names out more thoroughly. I don't go out of my way to enforce "code" here, I could be editing articles.

You obviously don't agree with the rule, per your original additions and your edit summaries. Why don't we discuss on the talk page over there what to do now and in the future?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mattisse, there's nothing "selective" about my enforcement on this, and I am not the lone enforcer. It has nothing to do with you, I just happened to notice after you added them that they had less than 1000, I just missed the others (and haven't had time to check on all the ones you pointed out). I'll get to the others when I have time, but right now I'm going to get back to editing articles. But come on, if you have a real problem with the rule, why don't you bring it up over there? If not, I assure you I'll deal with it when I can, but it won't be right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Like I said, I'll get to it when I get to it, but I'm not taking any more time away from editing articles right now. I really am sorry you've been so upset by this, the only reason I edit the page is as a memorial to those who were once an important part of the community but are not any longer. I edit it the way I do because of consensus gathered from the talk page, the AfD, from the others who have maintained the page (some of whom sadly are no longer editing themselves). I didn't have anything to do with giving you the warning, but you were apparently editing out of resentment, and for my part I did try to apologize and explain myself to you. I wish you would reconsider unwatching the page, there is much work to be done, and fewer and fewer people interested in doing it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't treat you any way at all, except to revert your first addition, and then attempt to explain why. Nor did I "support bullying" by not jumping up and editing as fast as you would have liked, I have other things to do, on and off Wikipedia. I suggest you not take things quite so personally, particularly if you're not going to discuss it on the dedicated talk page But your right, this conversation is over.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They call the guy Last Word Cúchullain I've heard. --Mattisse 03:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a sockpuppet of bsharvey?

Just curious, since you seem to support him; and since I work with the user you knew as Gtadoc and commented on his page I'm apparenlty his sockpuppet. With reasoning like that I wonder where you received your PhD from? Though, I suppose the fact that we are accross the hall from each other right now must make it so that we are the same person...lol, gotta love WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk • contribs) 02:16, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Well, Allgoodnamesalreadytaken, put a case together if you think so. --Mattisse 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly Mattisse , you missed the point. I don't think so, but since you've gotten down in the mud with the proverbial Sus scrofa in that petition then you have to expect such comments. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are scratching your head, perhaps its because I see a double standard based upon some other posts of yours, namely:

"Because he was accused as a sock puppet from the get go and spent the whole time (about three months) defending himself, he never got a chance to do anything elso until he was driven out. He was eventually warn down and driven off by the massive organized accusations of sock puppetry, plus constantly being reported on AN/I, being unwillingly added to complaints RFC's and Arbitrations etc. But ask User:Salix alba what happened. I can give you other names if you want. The check user showed that that he was not a sock puppet as did suspected sock puppet investigations. There is no a question now that he was not a sock puppet. User:Salix alba, User:BostonMA, and many others were involved and hurt by what happened. User:Salix alba said that what happened to User:Timmy12 was the worst outcome of the Starwood Arbitration and the resulting discovery of massive sock puppetry. With the other name I added, it was even sadder but I could not get help for him. I still few a huge amount of sadness. He was unknowingly caught up in the sock puppet abuse but was too innocent to defend himself or even get help. There was never a question that he was a sock puppet. His name was MensKeperRa (talk • contribs • count). I am sorry that you do not understand, but I believe these individuals should be remembered, not only for the pain they endured, but it would help to bring to Wikipedia's these wrongs in the hopes of preventing them in the future. --Mattisse 03:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)"

Perhaps you should heed your own wordsAllgoodnamesalreadytaken 03:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have no response, even after being shown wrong...

DYK

On 28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miran (China), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On 28 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hellhound on My Trail, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Peta 12:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cpedit

Mattisse, Based on your feedback and edit summaries, I gathered some action-items for me:

ISBN for books (Done)
Remove unnecessary footnotes
Add citations to sentences you've tagged
Need to clarify concepts of Sangam age, Tamil country.

I have started working on these items in order. However, I'm still not sure about what to do with the Sources section. Would help if you suggest how I can clarify things.

While I work on these items, please continue with your edits, time permitting. There may be several redundant or spurious claims and some unclear ones. If you could note them down either here or in the talk page I will address them eventually. Thanks, again, for your time. Lotlil 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting feedback and suggestions for improving the Trade route article

Greetings,
I'm writing this post to you to request your feedback and suggestions for improvement/expansion of the Trade route article.
I edited this version of the article to the present state and am currently exhausted and out of ideas to edit the article any further. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Havelock the Dane 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. As for the first sentence, I just improvised on the already existing intro "A trade route is the sequence of pathways and stopping places used for the commercial transport of cargo. Trade routes can be land or water-based." As for specific goals, Right now I have none. I'm out of ideas and would appreciate newer suggestions and your vision of how the article should be expanded. Is the inclusion of air routes and cargo flights possible? With Regards, Havelock the Dane 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored old intro, Havelock the Dane 18:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you replying; I was begining to think that I may have pestered you a bit too much :-) . Your suggestions give me a lot of good ideas and recommendations to work with and I will work towards providing more summaries (with links to the main articles) about more trade routes. A section about the overlap of trade routes can also be a great idea for this article.

I agree that there are simply too many links in the article and I hope to create a template titled "Part of a series on Category:trade routes" and put it up on every single page so that people can navigate easily from one page to the other.

P.S. I'm working on a sourced version of the orphaned History of international trade article and have come up with this. Can I trouble you to add a couple of line about the Chinese silk route to it since I'm not familiar with it.

With regards, Havelock the Dane 20:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll try to work on the template ASAP. Havelock the Dane 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both the articles look great and I have found my points regarding Chinese economy here. Thanks for pointing the articles out, Havelock the Dane 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PericlesofAthens has some great stuff, I even looked up his account of Wikimedia commons and he has done well there. The China related articles are both well written and informative. I am in the process of collecting some info for writing about the economy of China right now. I did'nt know they used paper money before most countries! Havelock the Dane 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made the template and updated the article. I found an excellent image of one of the first banknotes in history in the articles that you suggested and found three points regarding the Song Dynasty which I incorporated in the expansion. Thanks and Regards, Havelock the Dane 23:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment

I don't know how my comment came across, but I wasn't trying to be protective of my edits or something like that. If anything I can see the article starting to take a reasonable shape after you started working on it. Anyways, you've pointed out enough holes that I think will keep be busy for the next few days :-) Much appreciate your time. Lotlil 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't realize there was a requirement about using ndashes in footnotes. I remember reading that section in WP:MoS, but I missed this point. Will fix it, thanks. Lotlil 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your support; I'm happy to see you have more DYKs.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blanking image without warning

While I disagree with the assertion that it was an indiscriminate blanking, your point is taken. Next time I will add a note on the article talk page explaining any removal (outside of routine CSD deletions). Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Mattisse 00:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit

Please go right ahead. If there is any way in which I can be of help let me know. I'll expand the template mentioning the cities etc. along the trade routes in the near future and do a better job at aligning it in articles. I'll also add more trade route sections to the main trade route article ASAP.
With regards, Havelock the Dane 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and made another template, Havelock the Dane 21:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Honor

I hope that you accept that I have inducted you into the "Wall of Honor". This is my way of honoring the outstanding members of our community, whom I have had the honor of interacting with. Tony the Marine 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Yarlang tsango river tibet.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Yarlang tsango river tibet.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

I came up with these two in a hurry. I had to spend most of today preparing for a short trip that I have to take tomorrow so it was'nt much. I found that inserting an image in a footer infobox is a lot harder than manipulating it in an ordinary one, especially when the image in question deals with a trade route (mostly maps or photos of routes). Take a look, I can edit for better colors etc. when I return. I checked the image (in the second template) on Firefox and IE and found out that it fits nicely given the default IE config.
With Regards,
Havelock the Dane 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message; the Silk Road was the next article I wanted to edit as it covers an ancient and influential trade route connecting Mesopotamia, India, China etc.

Thankfully, abundant material is available for referencing and the article has a good enough structure but needs lots of cited info and verifiable facts.
Regards, Havelock the Dane 19:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the Congrats. Wouldn't have been possible without you and some others. I'm really happy to have befriended you. Tony the Marine 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hibakusha

Hi. Back on 21 August, you added, "..., the full name is the Japan Confederation of the A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organization, is a group formed with the goal of pressuring the the government..." to hibakusha, as if that phrase were the name of the category of people. As best I can tell, it's actually the English-language name of Nihon Hidankyo, or possibly Gensuikyo. Could you check this?
—wwoods 03:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I found the article Hibakusha in the need to be Wikify bin and just fixed up the article enough to get it out of there and removed the tag. Any information I added I got from the referenced citations with I see I added (from your diff). Other than that, I am no expert on the subject and I don't know the Japanese language so I am not much good at helping you out with your question. You are probably right, as I just don't know. Regards, Mattisse 12:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dougong

Why is it sometimes spelled 斗栱 and sometimes 斗拱? Is either considered more correct?

I'm not sure what the first one is, but the second one is for dougong (I only know elementary Chinese, so I just used an online translator). Use this one: 斗拱

--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superman? Not quite. Lol.

No, I just started school this semester, I don't have finals until December; long ways away. Thanks for noticing my new FA on Augustus.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 2 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dougong, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel 01:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dougong

Just wanted to thank you for creating that article! Been waiting for a while for it -- and now there's something to link to from Caisson (Asian architecture) and Forbidden City and all the rest. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your article Caisson (Asian architecture) interesting also. I like to try to understand the details of architecture. It's hard to find information on Chinese architecture -- at least for me. --Mattisse 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bao'en Temple

Hi Mattisse. I like the Bao'en Temple article you've created. However, I don't understand why you put Image:Freer 024.jpg in the article; it's a beautiful painting, a picture I took from the Freer Gallery of Art, but it isn't related to the temple at all.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately the only "Bao'en Temple" picture I know of on wikipedia or commons is the Beisi Pagoda picture, but that belongs to the Bao'en Temple of Jiangsu province, not Sichuan province. I've seen the pagoda at the Sichuan Bao'en Temple, it's nice, but there is no free picture of it on the web, not even fair use.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! I've never been to China, I've only seen a picture of it. The only places I've traveled abroad to are Germany, Romania, Mexico, and the Caymen Islands.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on Youguo Temple! Please, by all means, feel free to incorporate much of the new info into the Iron Pagoda article, since it is rather short.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff

In regards to the "non structural carpentry," I have no idea. As to the article you shared, the only thing that stood out was the mentioning of nails. I've read that the Chinese used plenty of nails in shipbuilding, but not actual buildings on land, as entire halls could be designed in such as way that they could be built without a single nail.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of category

Personally, I would go with "category:History of Chinese architecture", but that's just me.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, there probably are too many categories that start with "History of..."--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the slightest clue.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Joe turner honey hush.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Joe turner honey hush.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 6 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Youguo Temple, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yarkand

Dear Matisse: Your added tags spurred me on to beginning to tidy up the page on Yarkand which I had mostly worked on when I was new to the Wikipedia. I have added a number of footnotes and so removed the tags for citations and footnotes (although it still needs more footnotes - I will be trying to chase them up). Perhaps you would have a look at it again and send me any comments you may have. Do you still think it needs the "tone or style" and "neutrality" tags on the History section?

I know the quote from my book (which is due to be published soon through the University of Binghampton) is very long - but, I think the section is really important for the understanding of the development of the Silk Routes and the key role Yarkand played in this process. But please don't hesitate to tell me if you think it should be shortened or have any other ideas on how to improve the article. Many thanks, John Hill 00:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article zaojing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 11:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cue validity

Why did you remove the Psychology category tag from Cue validity and Base Rate? Kindly reply on my Talk page. Thanks. —Dfass 11:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eye–hand coordination

OK, not quite sure what the issue is, but remove the straight "Psychology" category if you wish, as long as the NOS stays. The phenomenon is far more than just neuropsychology. Tony 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh. I don't think some people will be comfortable with all of that coming under an umbrella of Neuropsychology. I'm wondering why there's a problem if a large number of articles are categorised under a single one. Problem is that a lot of psychology-related stuff is going to lie in more than one of these large-scale categories, don't you think? Tony 03:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention to this issue is important to the project. Please don't be discouraged. I don't have time right now, but I will deal with the issue in the next month, for the ?three articles I've started in the area. Thanks for pointing out this stuff to me. Tony 15:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing cats

Why are you removing all of these categories from categories? I've looked over your edits, and none of them make any sense to me. For example, removing structural analysis from structural engineering. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up engineering would be great, but that doesn't explain why removing subcats from the structural engineering or mechanical engineering cat helps. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You respond incredibly quickly. I'm not encouraging you to stop, I hope you continue to help clean up the cat, I know that they need it, I've been cleaning up a lot of the cats myself, but I don't at all understand how your particular moves were helping, that's all. When I clean up cats, I move individual articles from overly broad cats to more specific sub cats of the larger cat. Doesn't that make sense? – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything that you have said on my talk page, and I have been doing the exact same thing to help cleanup categories [7]. However, I was asking about particular moves to the structural engineering cat which were entirely different [8]. In fact, just a few days ago, I moved all of the structural analysis articles from the structural engineering cat into the structural analysis cat. That is exactly what you are encouraging me to do on my talk page, but your moves have been undoing it. If you don't want to work on the engineering cats anymore, that's OK, I'll clean up the things you did. I am guessing that your moves just stem from not understanding how particular parts of engineering are related (if anything, you should have removed numerical analysis from structural analysis, not leave it as the only parent cat), and by coming here, I just wanted to let you know of a few of those mistakes. I'm sorry that you are feeling "bitten" for your contributions, but I welcome you to make more of the contributions you have discussed on my page. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the wrong diff, I was showing you my edit. I was showing you that I do the same type of editing. Are you feeling OK right now? You seem like a really wonderful editor, but to be honest, you seem to be "off the mark" right now. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology categories

Mattisse, Although I understand the need to put articles into subcategories, some of your recent recategorizations are off the mark. I reverted them with an explanation in the edit summary, only to have you make the changes again. For example, on the Legal psychology article, you removed the "law" and "psychology" categories and replaced them with "forensic psychology." I explained in my edit summary that legal psychology is specifically NOT forensic psychology; a point that is also made in the introduction of both articles. In another example, you removed the "psychology" category from the article on social psychology. Again, I understand that there is a social psychology subcategory, but I would have to imagine that, more than anything else, articles on the major subfields of psychology (social, clinical, developmental) deserve to remain in the top-level psychology category. -Nick^talk 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to help out Mattisse in a time that he/she is being critized a lot, I personally like to remove articles like social psychology from a cat like psychology if social psychology is a subcat because a browser is going to see the social psychology subcat first and will just click on it. I imagine Wikipedia guidelines support both and leave it up to the user to make a judgment call. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Emotion Cat is found here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_12. I am having a hard time with many Psychology articles as a lot of people think they know all about a topic, but all of them seem to be working from different paradigms; or even worse 'self help books'. This makes the articles very unstable, unstructured and often biased. I have half given up on many of those. Arnoutf 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposed: Tsamadou Beach → Kokkari

It has been proposed to merge the content of Tsamadou Beach into Kokkari. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 11:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion

Thank you for your involvement in bringing some order to the category emotion. I see that you are removing many articles from the category, but please remember that the present meaning of 'emotion' as a category is as a matter of fact 'anything closely related to affective states and processes'. As you must have seen, the category might soon be renamed, and several new subcategories might be created. So, your work could probably be more useful now if you would take part to the discussion going on about the category emotion, rather than removing inappropriate links: we need to create more appropriate ones, like perhaps Category:Religion (affective aspects), if you see what I mean.... Robert Daoust 23:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some authorities (Ekman for example) do think that surprise is an emotion. Mood is an important lay word that scientists try to define more sharply with not all than much agreement. It is not important to them that they have that word sharply defined. A given scientist or author may define the word for his or her own purposes, but is unlikely to get general agreement. Participate in the discussions. Try to make constructive comments. It's more fun. DCDuring 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You believe that I am the author of those templates on emotions (a side-box, a footer, and a 'positive emotions' footer). I am not their author, I never contributed to them, and I do not like them at all. I tried to explain to you what I am doing since 2 or 3 weeks with regard to the mess about emotions and about psychology, but for whatever reason you are not receptive or collaborative at all. I can see that my involvement in this matter is over now, since my renaming proposal appears unacceptable, and since I found no collaboration for discussing or doing a restructuring work in psychology. So long, happy trail to you! --Robert Daoust 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forensic psychology / Legal Psychology

Mattisse, I a bit confused, as I assume since you are trained as a forensic psychologist you recognize the clinical nature of the field. Academic forensic psychology specializations are almost exclusively run within clinical programs. In recent years, those of us (I include myself) who study "psychology and law" but deal with entirely non-clinical issues (jury decision making, the rule of law, eyewitness issues, legal policy, etc) came to be known as "legal psychologists" and our work referred to as legal psychology. The only real distinction was that legal psych referred to non-clinical psych and law, while forensic psych referred to clinical topics. Even more recently, graduate programs in legal psychology have popped up, and they maintain that they have a non-clinical focus. In fact, the APA differentiates between forensic and legal psych in this same way: [9]. In addition, taking a quick look at forensic psych journals, I see that they mainly cover clinical "practice" issues.

I respect your training as a forensic psychologist, but the current state of the larger "psychology and law" field is that a divide exists between clinical and non-clinical, with different names for each. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues at my university or others would consider themselves forensic psychologists, yet we study psychology and law. In addition, I doubt the few forensic psychologists I know would consider themselves "legal psychologists." As such, I have reversed some of your changes to the Legal Psychology article, to continue to emphasize the divide.

I am sure that a small portion of self-identified forensic psychologists were trained in non-clinical areas, but I think your rewrite of the forensic psychology article is misleading, and seems to suggest that a forensic psychologist is any psychologist that a court deems to be an "expert." There are thousands of psychologists that testify as experts on matters unrelated to patient assessments--these folks are NOT forensic psychologists. And, anyone who does testify as to "state of mind," "insanity," or "competency," is overwhelmingly likely to be a clinician. As such, I think it is improper to deny that forensic psychology is a clinical field. -Nick^talk 05:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, your comments suggest to me that you don't particularly put much effort into reading what you're editing or responding to. First, "psychology and law" is a generic term--I never said that some psychologists are "forensic" and some "psychology and law." What I did say is that Forensic and Legal psychology are two distinct areas; one clinically-focused, the other not. And yes, people do self-identify as "forensic psychologists" or "legal psychologists," but both would probably consider themselves as people who study "psychology and law." Most journals are "psychology and law" based, meaning they publish both forensic psych and legal psych articles. I too have been receiving these journals for years, and I also know what's in them. In addition, I am not claiming that there is anything that a forensic psychologist "can't do" that a legal psychologist could; rather I am emphasizing the different foci of each field. Furthermore, I know that forensic psychologists are part of the AP-LS as are legal psychologists. You seem to be under the impression that I am out to attack your profession, or that my idea of what a forensic psychologist does is naive or misinformed. I assure you that none of those are the case.

Next, I ask that you please take the time to double check your edits. Some of them seem like nonsense (adding a random word where it doesn't belong), and there are misspellings and capitalization errors that lead to redlinks. -Nick^talk 17:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV edits on Boston by Foot

Since you did a small edit to the Boston by Foot entry and you are clearly a prolific wikipedia editor, i was hoping to ask you about how to remove a tagged for advertisement notice. i have read several of the relevant guide pages on NPOV and advertising, but i am not sure after these edits are made, how to determine if they are sufficient and if they are, how to get the attention of the appropriate wiki administrators to get the tag removed. Any advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated and thx for all your work on this valuable common resource. Paxuscalta 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Route

Hi,
I recently had a taste of what a GA review feels like and I feel like I have taken the required precautions to nominate the Trade route article for GA, except maybe looking into the typos and the structure for which I'm presently too blind/tired. Ignoring the typo and structure issues could I trouble you to look into the article and provide some feedback on what more needs to be done ?
With regards,
Havelock the Dane

Thank you, Havelock the Dane 19:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a taste of how religion made its way along the Silk roads reading The Silk Roads: Highways of Culture and Commerce by Vadime Elisseeff. Not only do I welcome the addition, I actually would like to contribute to Buddhism related articles as soon as I get over my August-September (2007) projects. Havelock the Dane 19:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They sailed to the "Land of Punt" under Sahure using the Red Sea ports but I'll get some additional details. The Egypt-Land of Punt trade may be along one of the early regular sea routes and can be expanded since ships did sail with some regularity between the two regions. Havelock the Dane 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to "Do you have a reason for linking the dates?" my honest reply would be none whatsoever. I just followed a general pattern that I saw in some other pages and implemented it uniformly. I'll rem the links ASAP. Havelock the Dane 20:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied/pasted this paragraph from Denemark, Robert Allen (2000). World System History: The Social Science of Long-Term Change. Routledge. ISBN 0415232767 in blockquotes:

This was a time when western Asian, Mediterranean, Chinese and Indian societies developed along relatively independent lines. Regional transportation arteries emerged; The Royal Road of Persia, the Grand Trunk Road of India, the Ambassador Road and Yellow river system of China, the Incense Road of Arabia and, adjacent to it, the Phoenician sea lanes of the Mediterranean. Regional constellations of cities sharpened in resolution; a world galaxy of cities was still embryonic.

I then proceeded to convert it into sentences since a blockquote felt odd in the intro. I kept the basic structure intact but should have removed the non notable mentions.
,Havelock the Dane 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought can the present structure be kept ? Perhaps someone will later expand the article and will create the Abassador road article ? The para is about early routes and some other routes can be mentioned alongwith the major Asian and European routes. Havelock the Dane 05:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointment DRV

I saw your post at Template_talk:Emotion-footer and think you comments may benefit the discussion at Disappointment DRV. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 23:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Americans in World War II

I have tried to add {{rs}} tags to many of the sources in this article (see diff), but Tony the Marine is removing them because he says you said the sources are okay. Do you actually think these flagged sources are reliable? They're all self-published by non-professional sources and amateurs. 17:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry about the edit conflict, which I was unaware of. I find one way to deal with them is to copy my paragraph from the edit conflict page, back all the way out to the page text, and re-edit the section in question with a simple paste; that usually works. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did do that as that is my normal way to cope. But somehow, since there were five or six edit conflicts, and the page is so long that it is difficult to find the correct place, I accidently lost my copy. --Mattisse 18:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affect (psychology)

Let's make it better. What is problem with it? Leave some comment on the Affect (psychology) discussion page. Doesn't the APA have a disctionary/glossary to consult since this is, far more than "emotion", a psychotherapists/psychologists term?

As I can express it in layman's terms, the problem is that there are subjective feelings and displayed appearances that we associate with the subjective feelings. Some displays are feigned, deceptive. These could be possibly "willed" or possibly habitual. Some displayed emotions can even occur without the subject apparently experiencing the associated subjective state.

The term affect has been (is being ?) used to refer to both the displayed appearance AND to the subjective feeling.

It is, however, the only one-word term available to separately describe the display so as to allow the potential for display not exactly corresponding to subjective feeling. DCDuring 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is one of those words that is taken for granted. Part of any Mental Status Exam is Affect, as in "affect is blunted" or "affect is flat" etc. Looking in a book on writing psychological reports, it says:

The emotional state refers to the most overt level of psychological life, that is, the manifest mood and affect and the behaviors driven by these states. Specific content which may be discussed in this subsection may include the following:

The first questions the books list here is:

What is the affective state of the subject (e.g., appropriate, inappropriate, flat, constricted, labile, blocking, or hypomanic)?

Question 2:

Is the subject reporting any significant emotional stress or manifesing symptoms of severe emotions distress, such as agitation or anxiety reaction?

Then there are eight more questions. If you want, I can list them all. Then the book says:

In the Emotional subsection, the prevalent mood and affect are discussed in terms of strength, duration, congruence with one another, and suitability/adaptability. Some clarification of the difference between mood and affect may be useful. The following analogy may help: Mood is to affect as climate is to weather. This analogy serves to differentiate a long-term from a short-term case and helps delineate the two concepts. It is also important to know if the affect (weather) is incongruent with or at variance to the overall mood (climate). Just as a hot day in the arctic is notable, so would be an elevated or giddy affect in an overall depressed individual or in the context of a situation where most people would be distressed. In addition, a person presenting with flat or constricted affect after discovering he or she had won a million-dollar lottery may tell us something about the level of depression this individual is experiencing. Obviously, other dimensions of affect can be relevant, as well as the incongruence of mood with the presenting situation.

It goes on. What do you think? --Mattisse 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and later it says:

Although somewhat different, the prevailing mood is related to the emotional stress level of an individual. The level of stress generally indicates the felt emotional distress of the individual. However, many individuals present to others on an overt level in a manner different from that which they experience themselves. For example, the hypomanic subject may view himself or herself as experiencing no difficulty. The clinician obviously sees something different. Sometimes the subject will present with considerable hostility and paranoia and genuinely believe that there is no problem. A subject's mood may be extremely variable, changing during the course of the evaluative session or over days or weeks.

That is what I have found so far in terms of definitions. --Mattisse 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look it up in the next couple of days in the 2007 APA Dictionary, which my local public library has. I hope that it suits our purposes. It might at least help at the Wiktionary level. If we recognize variety in the terms, we can focus the article on the sense that is most neglected in other articles. DCDuring 21:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a new article called Affect display and copied (not moved) the entire text of the Affect article to it, because that seems to be the APA term (from 2006 dictionary) for the concept defined. There may be some professionals who use the term "Affect" to mean what the APA calls "Affect display", but I can't find any documentation from an authoritative source for such usage. I'm surprised no one had the knowledge or courage or energy or confidence to reject the article text as written. I was somewhat sympathetic with the idea of using "affect" as the article mentioned, because it gave a one-word label for an important concept, but I'll settle for a two-word label for a new article. DCDuring 00:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional Labor

That looks like a very reasonable article. I don't get what makes it OR in your opinion. It needed a bit of Wikification. I think the author ran out of gas on doing proper in-line footnotes. In any event, it's a sociology article, with 20 sociology references. Don't that count? Or do only references from the DSM count? DCDuring 03:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 2 weeks old. Why are you hitting it so hard? Welcome the newbie!!! It's a WP policy, you know. DCDuring 03:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user asked for help and you dumped tags on top of what was there. Why don't you give Hila a link to an example of your work? DCDuring 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the user contribution page. The article is 2+ years old. User Hila is trying to clean it up and asked for guidelines to help. She is new. She started an article of her own on a related subject 2 weeks ago (the source of my mistake.). Be nice. DCDuring 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Songyue Pagoda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Category:Emotion

Hi, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Routes

Hi,
I've tried to address some concerns and have provided citations for a new section added to the article. Could I trouble you again to see what more needs to be done for the article to be nominated and passed for GA ?
With Regards,
Havelock the Dane 08:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evenness of zero

Hey, could I ask you to revisit Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on September 14? I don't know how strongly you feel about your hook for Evenness of zero, so perhaps you could comment on that. Melchoir 16:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've Got a Lot of Work to Do

The number of completely unreferenced articles in WP is huge. If you spend your time deleting articles or material from articles that 1. have incomplete citations, 2. have citations that are not formatted properly, 3. have citations that don't have page references, then 1., there won't be much of WP left, 2., you won't have time to do any constructive work on WP. DCDuring 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of completely unreferenced scientific and technical articles in WP is huge. If you spend your time deleting articles or material from scientific and technical articles that 1. have incomplete citations, 2. have citations that are not formatted properly, 3. have citations that don't have page references, then 1., there won't be much of WP left, 2., you won't have time to do any constructive work on WP. DCDuring 23:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, am seeking to spread error and deceit throughout WP as part of my plan to rule the world. Part of that plan includes writing under-referenced works that attempt to lead people from ordinary English terms discussed in stubs and near-stubs via internal links to the more definitive, albeit often extermely incomplete in coverage and biased, main articles. The number of everyday concepts that have been neglected is large, although not as large as the number of underreferenced articles. DCDuring 23:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism in Chinese architecture/culture

If you could kindly link me up to the relevant article(s) I would like to provide some input on the subject. Reading about Buddhism and the spread of the religion along the Silk route aroused my interest in related subjects and I think I can look up some reliable sources and quotations regarding the subject which has caught my attention unexpectedly.
With Regards,
Havelock the Dane 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hey there Mattisse. I hope you don't think I am singling you out or anything, I comment on lots of nominations if I happen to have stuff nominated at DYK myself, btw enjoyed the article that was previously featured on DYK. Thanks and keep up the good work. IvoShandor 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good, glad to hear it. :) I am around if you need any assistance trying to make your way around here. IvoShandor 01:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there isn't a tool on wiki that I know of. I use an external word processor, just MS Word but any program should work, as long as its word count feature has a character count too. IvoShandor 01:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Buddhism & Trade Routes

I have been down with Influenza since the last few days and hence the delayed replies. Thanks for the image, the towns associated with the Silk Route are really interesting and I think that the Cities along the Silk Road can benefit from these key points. On an unrelated note, I couldn't find the the Songyue Pagoda discussion in your contribs, on your talk page or the article talk page. I did read the article though, and it summed up the views from the main encyclopedias and mainstream secondary sources very nicely.
Havelock the Dane 08:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cue validity

Thanks, I guess. Don't forget that this is just a hobby. Don't stress to much. —Dfass 02:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion Templates and TFD

Based on a recent DRV comment, I think you probably are in a reasonable position to make a WP:TFD nomination to resolve what appears to me to be a redundancy between {{Emotion-footer}} and {{Emotion}}. Could you review and make a TFD nomination for whichever the project is better off without. Thanks. GRBerry 02:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 20 September, 2007, a fact from the article death of Eugene Ejike Obiora, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and Importance Raters

I left a message at the portal about this with no luck but I thought you might know the answer. Can anybody be a rater for good articles? Someone who isn't registered left comments in the portal box of a psych. article. Can anybody do that or do you have to have signed up to the Psychology Project or something? Fainites ^barley 22:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matisse. I'll give it a go. Always impossible to judge ones own work. Fainites ^barley 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Categorization

Could you please stop removing the social science from the geography category page. Just because geography is not listed on a template on wikipedia does not mean that geography is not classified as a social science. Read the article social sciences and you find geography listed there, read also the List of academic disciplines and it is again listed under social sciences. Further if you go on to many university websites geography is in the social sciences faculty. AlexD 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions Anonymous Citations

What exactly do you mean by this? -- Craigtalbert 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to the recent Arbitration Committee ruling. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that these are the standard for reference citations, especially for science-based articles, to prevent pseudo scientific information appearing in legitimately scientific categories. Actually, WP:V specifies that standard for all Wikipedia articles. The Arbitration Committee states specific reference citations must be from reliable third-party, unbiased sources. In the case of scientific references, the citations must be from peer-reviewed literature. Unpublished, self-published, and draft versions are specifically ruled out. Since the Emotions Anonymous article is placed in scientific categories, it must follow these standards. Regards, --Mattisse 19:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, okay. If I didn't know better I'd think it was a passive aggressive way of saying the article was poorly researched or something like that. I'm sure if that was the case you would have cited specific examples rather than posting an ambiguous message in the talk page for the article. Thank you for the clarification. -- Craigtalbert 04:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Road (trade routes)

I remembered that the Silk Route article was due for editing and referencing. I'm still fatigued and recovering somewhat but am also in the process of reading the following sources to try and edit the Silk Road article in the near future.

http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/photograph/
Silk Road pics.

http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/toyobunko/
Digital archive of basic references regarding Silk Road. Can be at least used for links and primary sources and expedition records etc.

Gernet, Jacques (1996). A History of Chinese Civilization. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521497817.

Rhie, Marylin Martin (2002). Early Buddhist Art of China and Central Asia. BRILL. ISBN 9004128484.

Onians, John (2004). Atlas of World Art. Laurence King Publishing. ISBN 1856693775.

Elisseeff, Vadime (2000). The Silk Roads: Highways of Culture and Commerce. Berghahn Books. ISBN 1571812210.

Young, Gary Keith (2001). Rome's Eastern Trade: International Commerce and Imperial Policy, 31 BC-AD 305. Routledge. ISBN 0415242193.
This book should cover the Silk Road-Western world interactions.

Ball, Warwick (2000). Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. Routledge. ISBN 0415113768.
Silk Road-Western world interactions.

These are just for starters. I know that newer sources regarding technology and religion along these lines are in order and will get them as soon as I start editing.

With Regards,
Havelok 10:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of Records of the grand historian of China in here. I'm beginning to envy the multilingual people who can read these beautiful books written in other languages.
Havelok 11:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Flaming Mountains, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Citation

Greetings... I have added a reference to the section in question. Can I remove the "Citation Needed" alert now?

Thanks. William Meyer 18:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After adding this note above, I found your comments to me. I appreciate your suggestions. You recommended "...submitting your article to the Good Article review ... or asking someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors to help you. The latter may be the best way to go. They will help you and you can learn from them."

I will look into this, and decide which way to go to get help ... I want to learn about this so that my articles will have the quality that Wikipedia wants. William Meyer 04:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbies and whatnot

I've spend hundreds of hours adding and editing articles. I'm all in favor of anything that makes Wikipedia easier to edit and navigate. All I'm trying to say to you is "relaaaax." —Dfass 13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

emotional exhaustion

Hello Mattisse, I've been rewriting the article about emotional exhaustion, I'll be glad if you could read it and tell me what you think. thanks --Hila2410 15:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your edit in Dingli

Hello. Regarding your edits I don't think it is entirely vandalism, some of the edit (by the same IP) are attempts to use the Maltese language reference to the villa name. I'll try to put up a response and watch this user. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 17:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC) ( proud member WP:MALT )[reply]

No, they weren't my edits, they were by 212.56.129.46 (talk · contribs). I've posted something to them saying thanks, but be constructive. As for me, I should try to use better summaries. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

Did you know? was updated. On 25 September, 2007, a fact from the article Police enforced ANPR in the UK , which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

When someone commits vandalism, as 74.71.132.73 did to AC/DC, you should give them a warning on that user or ip's talk page. Therefore if he/she vandalizes again, you will know that he/she has done it before and, if the vandal will not cease vandalism, you can report them with good evidence and hopefully get them blocked. Tim Y (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really need your opinion

Mattisse, I really need your honest opinion here: Talk:Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy. Let me explain the situation. I wrote Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy and nominated it for GA (Mind you I have no intention of anything higher). A User who looked at it stated that "he is tempted in failing it" because he believes that it is original research (which it is not), but he is not sure. I believe that he is confused in regard to policy. Let me tell you that our conversation is very civil and that there isn't any debate "per se" going on. Since, I respect you so much, I would like you to go over there and give us your opinion. I would be very grateful and I am sure that he would too, if you did. Thank you Tony the Marine 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Me and my references (smile). When will I learn? Tony the Marine 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British Band, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 01:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WerdnaBot

BTW, shouldn't it say archived by MiszaBot III (talk · contribs)? 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like a good service.. but the edit history says that it is MiszaBot III which archives your page.. and User:Werdnabot says that Werdnabot is not functioning and that Werdna is not on wikipedia. 「ѕʀʟ·✎」 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why this bothers you? When Werdnabot announced leaving, I was worried, but MiszaBot III took right up without skipping a beat. Is MiszaBot upset about the Werdnabot name remaining on pages? I have never heard that MiszaBot is, if that is the case. Regards, Mattisse 17:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The baths are waiting

We're waiting to edit when you remove your notice. Talk:Bathhouse Row. (SEWilco 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have never removed one. When I put the template on I added to the Wikipedia list (as directed on the template) and whoever handles that makes the decision to remove it or not. Once it is reported, I have never been involved in the outcome. If you want to edit, you can use the link suggested on the template. You could ask a question on the copyright questions page (Sorry, I don't have the link right now but there is one somewhere.) --Mattisse 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong and McKeen Citation

Thank you for your suggestion to add the proper citations to this article. I have learned a great deal in this process, and appreciate your suggestion to improve the standard of this article. I will follow this protocol in all my future writings for Wiki.

I removed the "citations missing" tag from this article today, since I have completed the upgrading of the citations to Harvard referencing standard. William Meyer 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai FARC

Hi Mattisse, you are quite correct about User:Sarvagnya's overt hostility and his antagonistic behaviour. It is on show not only here, but on numerous talk pages and edit summaries. His disruptive behaviour has caused many constructive and useful editors to simply stop contributing. I don't understand the reasons behind it other than assign immaturity and deep seated bias. However I strongly believe you and other reputed editors should make your comments heard. You should comment on the Chennai FARC. It is not exclusive to a select group of editors. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 04:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai

Thanks for the comments at Chennai FAR, Mattisse. Could you give the article a quick read through and see if the prose or flow needs work anywhere? Lotlil 13:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Samir

Dear Mattisse, This is a special letter of thanks. Months earlier you helped me start and maintain the article based on death. Today my work has expanded to a book and that article has much relationship with that. I will feel fortunate to add your name in the portion where I acknowledged the names of the helpful person behind such work. I will be very grateful if you e-mail me your full name and educational qualification. I want this opportunity to thank my friend, don't dishearten me my friend. Samir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.31 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aržano

Why did you list Aržano as a village close to Zagreb? It's in Dalmatia. Admiral Norton 12:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that comments to a user should go on their talk page, not their userpage, like User talk:Admiral Norton. Regards. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 13:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I apologise. That did come across a little rude. I should have double checked, but I wanted to make sure you knew of your mistake. Are we all good? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 13:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, if you don't want to make Aržano an orphan, put it in the article about Split, I suppose it's fairly close. Admiral Norton 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put a link in the Splitsko-dalmatinska županija article. Admiral Norton 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 28 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Karez well system, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of sort of DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 28 September, 2007, a fact from the article Warsaw pogrom (1881), which you recently ~~wrote or substantially updated~~, uh ~~nominated~~, uh, WROTE THE HOOK FOR!, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and a DYK nom

Did you know? was updated. On 29 September, 2007, a fact from the article Neotectonics, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ecstasy

So. We meet again. What have you decided to do on the emotion question? The articles ARE a jumble and in my more aggressive and energetic states I am inclined to try to straighten them out a bit, mostly at the article level, not at category level. There are religious types everywhere grabbing psychology topics that are partially religious (mindfulness and ecstasy are examples that come to mind). Armed with my Webster's 3rd, my OED, and my APA dictionary, I can do battle on definitional matters, but I haven't got much depth. I look forward to your thoughts. DCDuring 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to do nothing as all I got before was beat up. --Mattisse 02:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional Labor

BTW, Emotional labor didn't turn out too bad as a a piece of social psychology. Shouldn't it also be in the Sociology and maybe even Business areas? The author has asked to get it rated as a good article. Isn't it a good idea to get it B-rated first by Psych or Soc first? Or doesn't that matter? DCDuring 02:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article looks very good. It is a step up, in my opinion, to get it out of psychology and into some legitimate categories. My impression is that Social Psychology is better. It does not attract so many wackos. --Mattisse 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting rated for a Good Article does not involve a discipline. You just nominate it to be rated for Good Article status and the editors there give you feedback on MoS issues and such. I don't think the rating matters for GA. In any event, you can change the ratings yourself e.g. rate it as Start, say. The categories you have it in are good. And you should sort through the business categories and see if some are appropriate. I'm sure some are. Is there no Organizational Psychology? The article looks very professional. And it is interesting. Good work! --Mattisse 02:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it *really* isn't my article. I wish I could take credit for it, other than encouraging the person who did the work. An Israeli academic, I believe. DCDuring 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M'Naghten Rules

Thanks very much for your feedback. I saw that nobody was really keen to grasp the nettle of sorting this out once and for all, so I just went ahead and started. I'd be grateful if you will keep an eye on this and related pages to make sure I'm neither treading on toes nor losing relevant information. From my limited experience of Project:Law so far, my impression is that it's a bit of a mess, and this is largely due to (i) although this is en:Wiki, the laws are difficult to make cohabit and (ii) nobody else seems to be very active at present in working up the articles. If you don't have time, that's OK, I'll just get on with it. Regards, --Rodhullandemu 03:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do keep my eye on it and will continue. Actually, it is an advantage if nobody else is active, because those are the times you can actually get something done. When a few others see that you are serious, hopefully they will help. I have waded into a few of the sanity/competency articles and just straightened out hopelessly inaccurate information without bothering with references. But I do have them. People are muddled in their thinking about those issues. I rewrote the Forensic psychology article in a day because I was so fed up. And to my surprise, everyone else just backed off. So I would urge you to go ahead and do what you think is needed. --Mattisse 03:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perna viridis

Thanks for nominating my article. I just fixed some links in the hook but I think it is alright. I already requested the Tambayan to see if they can photograph one in the market.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! that means it will get DYK, right? By the way I found a B & W pic in the commons. It does not suit the article well but it will do for now. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for Perna viridis was successful

Did you know? was updated. On September 30, 2007, a fact from the article Perna viridis, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Diminished Responsibility==

Hi, in the UK DR can operate to reduce murder to manslaughter & thus avoid a mandatory life sentence. It can be linked to a mental state falling short of a diagnosable mental illness. Is it worth clarifying this? --Rodhullandemu 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same in my jurisdiction. I think it is worth clarifying. --Mattisse 15:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have I missed it?

Dear Mattisse, Have you sent any e-mail that I have missed. In fact I never received any mail from you and my server is also troublesome. If you don't have my e-mail address you can write to hmanjur@bttb.net.bd

Samir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.199.98 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for Edict of Compiègne was successful

Did you know? was updated. On September 30, 2007, a fact from the article Edict of Compiègne, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:note

I don't have anything to do with this "Abundance theory" article; I may have edited it, but I certainly didn't create it, so your warning went to the wrong person... GregorB 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. It's been deleted. --Mattisse 23:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

You are not an admin yet are you? Do you want it? I think even if I were worthy, it would be too likely to lead to me sitting here when I should be doing something more active for me to take it lol.Merkinsmum 01:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. As a group, I do not like or respect them. They spend most of their time arguing among themselves. I have a low tolerance for that sort of bickering and nitpicking. I'd rather just edit. But thanks for the thought. (And I am glad that I have met you!) --Mattisse 01:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol do you think they mostly spend time bickering amongst themselves? I thought it was spending their time abusing their power over the rest of us they enjoyed.:)Merkinsmum 03:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric abuse

Oh the article, I hate it so, rant rant, ignore me, I'm having a funny turn and should be prescribed valium lol. It's just wikistress, I've never really had it before.:) Sorry, had to let off steam, it's therapeutic lol:)Merkinsmum 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a harvesting of S. M. Sullivan's organs is in order? --Mattisse 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol he shouldn't have come off his medication against medical advice.:)Merkinsmum 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He claims ignorance of 3RR, and sometimes the admins at enforcement accept that in relatively new users. OK, so now he's been educated, and you can watch for WP:3RR; that is, reverting four edits by any editors in a 24-hour period. The article will likely be deleted, but this will come up again on all of those other awful articles. Have a look at WP:AN3 for how you have to report them; might as well get familiar with it now, because POV warriors rarely change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ignorance did not prevent me from being blocked when I didn't have a clue. I will not risk it and will leave the article alone. The last time I tried to stand up for myself on an article I had six sock puppets after me for nine months with no help from any one here. But thanks! --Mattisse 22:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matisse, if you want me to submit the report, I will, but I need four very clear diffs, and I can't figure out what he changed where, because I don't know the article as well as you do. WP:3RR also says newcomers must be warned first, so I warned him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do diffs. And I don't care about the article. The price will be too high if I am persecuted again. It is much to risky for me to get involved. I just want to be left alone and will stay out of it. But thanks! --Mattisse 22:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you just want to be left alone, why are you all over merkinsmums and KPBotany's talk pages suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet and all my articles must be vetted now? It does not matter how many people you lie to about me, you are not the one who is being attacked. S. M. Sullivan 05:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chat

Hi Mattisse, in regard to Hispanic Admirals in the United States Navy, I fixed the sources and the good news is that it passed GA. The bad news, however is that the same day that it passed User: T Rex went and listed for demotion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, insisting on the "original research" thing. I can't understand him, I believe that he doesn't fully understand the concept. I was wondering if you could help him understand that the article is not "original research" and that it is within policy (I don't want you to feel that you must express an opinion, if you don't it'll be O.K. with me). Thank you. Tony the Marine 23:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you you for sharing your wisdom. Tony the Marine 01:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I'm going to let it run its course. Besides, it is stressing me out. Tony the Marine 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chat 2

Mattisse, let me tell you that you are really a special friend. I'm not going to let the GA situation get me down, as a matter of fact I hope that they hurry up and delist it already. I have even taken it off my main page where I have listed all of my GA's. I know that in my heart that it is a rather good article, so I could care less what they think. What matters to me is what my readers think of my writting and from what you can see here: [10] that is all that really matters. I have decided that I will no longer contribute any articles to Wikipedia and that I will never again nominate nor wish to have any of my creations nominated for FA, Fl, GA or DYK's. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I sense an Anti-Hispanic sentiment going on. However, I am going to stick around to look after things. Did I tell you that you are really great? Tony the Marine 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 2 October, 2007, a fact from the article Jang In-hwan, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, D_arkF_alls ^talk 08:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked wanter of the west

yup, it's rather bad of me, especially after demanding references.... what will i ask for next, grammar? KP Botany 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

!!

Dear Mattisse, I hope everything is ok. May be you are negating what I am offering. I don't know, I am confused. Anyway, stay well. Samir Shoovrow 17:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Dear Mattisse, First I must say sorry to you for misunderstanding you. In fact I was doing research all those days before and after I got was exposed to wikipedia. Now my research is accumulated as a book on death. The theme of this book has a very significant relationship with the help you offerred me first time in wiki. It (the book) is under consideration with some international publisher. I am making a list of those that have and had good contribution in my work and also in the motivation I possessed for my work. Wikipedia article awakened my inner capacity and for that you are really special. So I want your name to be added in list of the name of those that has helped me via different contributions.

My computer crashed multiple times and I have lost your e-mail address too. So will you pls mail me (to hmanjur@bttb.net.bd) just your full name and the highest degree so that I can add it in the contributors list of the book. It is simply a scientific book on death under review by publisher.

Samir Shoovrow 17:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emotion

Who is willing to tackle this article? I am very interested in it, but lack depth. I can, at best, provide some time, breadth, enthusiasm, and recourse to my personal library of 10 psych titles on emotion. Do you have any leads on which wikipedians would be willing to focus on this? DCDuring 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, for me, I do not know how to define emotion. I would help you if I could. Besides a dictionary, where is there agreement as to what the word means? Is seems like it is loosely used by various groups meaning feelings, I am guessing, versus cognitions or reasoning. --Mattisse 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't much agreement. It is just way too important an arena to ignore. We really need an overall framework for fitting in divergent perspectives and theories. Emotion should be a main article that encompasses subjective states, behavior, physiology, and neurophysiology. The words "feeling" (subjective state), "mood", "affect" (a near synonym for feeling according to APA), "affect display", and even emotional predispositions (personality theory) need to be put in perspective in the emotions article. Self-regulation has a place. The philosophical and literary perspectives need a home to prevent destruction of the main structure of the article. The APA has done us the service of having made some executive decisions about where there is consensus. If the definitions in the APA dictionary are vague, it's because there is no consensus on theory. WP can't have one if the APA doesn't (let alone differences in perspective among groups internationally or among psychologists, cognitive scientists, neuropsyhologists, and psychotherapists). DCDuring 19:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And the trouble is that pulling all that together involves reading philosophy articles which I am constitutionally unable to do. My brain starts to spin. --Mattisse 19:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to send you something thoughtful, but I keep on losing what I type. Maybe later. DCDuring 20:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a strange message! --Mattisse 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP occasionally loses what I type. If I am interrupted before what I type is complete, I can't save because thought is not complete, but when I later finish my thought I occasionally find that WP gives me an error message, telling me my work is lost. Anyway, I should put it in the Emotion talk page so I can perhaps catch the attention of others as well. DCDuring 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Psychiatric Abuse discussion is instructive, but painful to read. It reminds me a bit of the Buddhist appropriation of the concept of mindfulness on WP, but with controversy. The Buddhists will be successful because the opposition is relatively weak and more commercial (particular brands of psychotherapy). I wonder it there is a meme-theoretician collecting data on the conditions for a Wikipedia article's deletion.

DCDuring 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD

This is a discussion page for an article that the user recently nominated for deletion. I'm adding this for other users to analyze. Please practice civility and assume good faith. Also, do not violate WP:POINT. - Cyborg Ninja 03:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drapetomania

I appreciate your repeated references to me as the article's owner. In your pathetic zeal to delete the article, you never bothered to look at its edit history. Had you done so, and it would only have taken a few seconds, you would have seen that I have never contributed to the article before today.

Had you acted civilly and explained your objections on the Talk page, you could have saved yourself considerable embarrassment at the AfD discussion. In any event, I'm glad you got the come-uppance you deserved. Maybe next time you'll act in good faith. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you consider slaves in the 1850's equivalent to problem children of today. Oppositional defiant disorder (a diagnosis for children only) is demeaning to African American slaves, just as mental health professions consider that diagnosis demeaning to children today. Further, you are saying African American slaves are equivalent to children. If you had shown any interest in improving the article except replacing a demeaning link about African Americans my attitude toward the article would have been completely different. The article has existed since April 2005 and is basically a quote farm and copy/paste. You are not helping to improve the article. Further, you are unwilling to learn enough about the mental health system to make accurate rather than demeaning statements. --Mattisse 03:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not embarrassed by the AFD. I acknowledged at the beginning that I wanted feedback. Please read the AFD to remember what I wrote. And please do no project your own feelings on me. Perhaps you would have been embarrassed but that is you, not me. --Mattisse 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with User:Malik Shabazz. You were not interested in improving the article and several users showed you why your nomination was faulty. In no way did you act like you were interested in feedback, especially when you ignored that feedback and continued to use the same ridiculous arguments over again. First off, you continually act like User:Malik Shabazz was the main and only author of the article, when he himself has told you he only edited it once. Second, you tagged the article multiple times rather than contribute to it, and then gave editors 3 hours around midnight ET before nominating it for deletion, and thirdly you are assuming bad faith again as I pointed out by claiming that User:Malik Shabazz thinks African-Americans are the equivalent of children. Like Malik said, you were merely angry at him for reverting your edit and took a personal vendetta against the article because of it, thereby violating WP:POINT which you denied on my Talk page. There is other evidence, but that should make it obvious. You have indeed embarrassed yourself. - Cyborg Ninja 03:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to go over and over all this again? Does it make you feel better to rant? I would have been grateful if the article had been improved. But as soon as I saw that all the article's owner was willing to do was revert the removal of a demeaning link about African Americans, I realized no one was interested in improving the article. I would have hoped some Wikipedia pride would have kicked in and people would have responded positively -- that frequently does happen in an AFD like this one -- and as you apparently do not know, is one of the primary reasons for bringing an AFD rather than deletion. But I did succeed in getting the objectionable link removed, something the editor arbitrarily reverted me on before. Sometimes on Wikipedia, improvements come one baby step at a time as in Drapetomania. Maybe in a couple of years more, someone will get up the energy to clean it up, cite references, remove the POV, and remove the quote farm. At least it got some attention so hopefully people like you, since you are so vehement and insistent in you point, will help clean it. Good for you if you do. --Mattisse 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to clean up the article for your own good. We do it because that is part of Wikipedia's philosophy and we wish to see the site improved. You clearly are a regular contributor to this site, and yet I see childish behavior on your part here. You have repeatedly ignored other users' arguments even if they are made to be as clear as day. AfD is not used to get an article to be improved. You can use the cleanup tag for that. Because you have admitted a clear policy violation by nominating articles for deletion that you yourself know don't qualify to be deleted, I will likely contact any administrator to review your conduct. - Cyborg Ninja 04:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding Drapetomania to the Medicine deletion sorting page, Mattisse, I wish more people bringing items to AfD would do likewise! In future, though, it would be helpful if you could note that items are usually added to the top of the list. Cheers, Espresso Addict 08:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

b*llox

Maybe we need a 'made-up psychiatric shock horror b*llox' arbcom. And/or maybe we'll tackle some of them in a bit.:)Merkinsmum 13:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said on my talk page there are more articles nested, also you said about Sully of 'psychiatric abuse' fame that he has a few. Please could you email me and list the dodgy articles for me, cos I'm thick lol, maybe then I can help out with them a bit or keep an eye on them.Merkinsmum 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric shock horror b*llox' category might be a good ideal too! --Mattisse 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oooh I just saw the 'psych abuse' article was deleted. I'm surprised to be honest, thought it would be end up being a 'no consensus.' There is hope after all for wikip lol.Merkinsmum 14:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was surprised too. I withdrew my AFD for Drapetomania yesterday after I was immediately attacked and harassed. However, I will continue to monitor the article as it pretends to be a psychiatric diagnosis. --Mattisse 14:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tony

Don't worry, I just returned form the hospital (My wife didn't feel well) and I noticed that it was de-listed. I'm glad that it is all over now. I was worried that they were going to insist on a AfD, the way they were going. Heck, I'm going to still be around, but I do not want any of my creations nominated for anything. I don't mind constructive criticism, I'm just tired of the bad faith editors who object because an article is about Hispanics.

I want to share something with you. Ever since I helped this old WW II soldier in a speacial quest (see:David M. Gonzales), i have received e-mails from people thanking me and asking for help in different issues involving WW II. So, far I have helped three families to bring closure. Yesterday, I receievd an e-mail from the family of Col. Virgil R. Miller (check him out in google). They tell me that he was a Puerto Rican and would like me to help in making sure that he receives the recognition that he derserves. Needless to say that I will help them as soon as they provide me with the proper documentation.

Look Mattisse, sometimes stupid things happen in Wikipedia, but as long as there are people like you in the project, then life is good. Tony the Marine 04:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2

Cyborg Ninja and Malik Shabazz have filed an unwarranted request for comment against you, and contend that you need not be notified of the discussion [11]. John254 06:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that the template had a "Response" section at the time. Just an "Outside views." It would have been wiser for you to have used that as an example since the RfC guidelines page is ambiguous. Also, bear in mind the previous version of the RfC that I made said that I was planning on notifying the user. - Cyborg Ninja 06:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Mattisse)

Hello, Mattisse. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, where you may want to participate.

-- Cyborg Ninja 06:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[12] --Mattisse 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 6 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Emin Minaret, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Limerence

The sad thing is: there are articles that could improve the article. I followed a link to "limerence" and had an immediate powerful negative visceral reaction. The article has lots of weaknesses, but a cursory Google Scholar search found several abstracts extending at least into the 1990s after the coinage. I had more trouble with compersion. It was a stub for a concept covered in two other articles, including polyamory, a hub of neologisms. An inclusionist admin simply removed my AfD tag on the stated grounds that the AfD discussion was needed. I assume that he didn't mean the self-contradictory argument he made.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the "Psychiatric abuse" AfD discussion. I don't think the deletion will stand, but it is a very instructive case for me. DCDuring 19:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the category question, I am trying to see whether I can maintain in my own mind a distinction between the aspects of emotion that are well suited to objective observation and measurement and those that are not. The subjective aspect "feelings" is so important to people that the difficulties have to be faced. The set of concepts like limerence and compersion and other things in the intimate relationships area are very alien to me, but seem to have a certain kind of validity, albeit not scientific yet. I think that they can't really talk about the feelings themselves, but by talking about the situations that generate them, they seem to converge on something they can agree on. Personally, I like the fact that hardly anyone would have more than 12 "basic" emotions with some distinct physiological manifestations. DCDuring 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm becoming more "live and let live", but a little policing helps. I'd be perfectly content if "compersion" became a good article. There are a some things that I have started that I am having trouble making progress on. I'd be hurt a bit if they got the deletions that they *may* deserve. The most productive things to do are to make good articles, whatever the starting point. I just find that in my roamings I find apparent outrages often. Sometimes they turn out to be not as bad as I thought (e.g., polyamory). Sometimes they are (e.g., compersion and polyamory terminology article. It really has terminology in the title!!! How much more blatant a violation of WP:not a dictionary can there be? DCDuring 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you dont mind my comment because i am that inclusionist mentioned--I saw this by accident. it seem the detagging was because a prod tag had been put on, it seems by mistake, instead of the afd--Im glad to see everyone agrees it needed an afd if it were to be deleted. the current state, by the way, is to try to let it get expanded--Im glad DCD decided to go for that. In my opinion most dictionary definition articles can be expanded into articles on the concept--the problem is knowing when there is enough to make it feasible, or when it should be held in wikitionary until someone has a chance to start over. (By the way, usually when I see one at Prod, I dont try to stop it going). I at least try to distinguish in some rational way. I'd be very grateful, by the way, for some explanation of the etymology of that term--from the sources, it seemed rather arbitrary. DGG (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drapetomania

Hi Mattisse. I have proposed a merge of this article with Dr. Cartwright's. Steve Dufour 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Cyborg Ninja

Following your comments at WP:AN I contacted the above user who confirms that they are not pursuing the matter(s). I would therefore be grateful if you would, to avoid escalating things, not make Cyborg Ninja a party to your comments at your further report at WP:ANI. I hope that this aspect can be ended here, and only reactivated if there are further incidents. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 23:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete psychiatric theories

Would you care to add an "Obsolete psychiatric theories" category? I'm asking you since you have more experience with the Psychology and Psychiatry articles on Wikipedia, and figure that this is a category that you would approve of. - Cyborg Ninja 03:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact

If you have any desire to communicate feel free to reach me via gmail using the most obvious address. DCDuring 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint about Fred Bauder

Moved from WP:BN.--chaser - t 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to complain that after the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood had been accepted and the Arbitration opened, Arbitrator Fred Bauder voted Keep in an AFD on article at that was in question in the arbitration about the founder of Starwood Festival by User:Rosencomet about himself, Jeff Rosenbaum.

User:Rosencomet's self promotion and promotion of his organizations in multiple Wikipedia articles plus spamming and COI behavior were at issue in the arbitration. I believe this gives the appearance of bias and I question this type of behavior on the part of arbitrators.

I have not had the nerve to complain until now.

--Mattisse 02:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This 'complaint' is not suitable for the bureaucrats' noticeboard, as there is nothing the bureaucrats can do. You would be better served to post at WT:RFAR, or, even better, at the talk page of the specific case. Daniel 02:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or Fred's talk page. Viridae ^Talk 04:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BN wasn't really the appropriate venue because bureaucrats don't actually have any power or say in arbitration. If you want to make a generalized complaint about an arbitrator, I would follow Daniel's advice above, although I recommend WT:RFAR as more appropriate than the case's talk page, since the case has been closed for months.--chaser - t 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see memory's of starwood are still bothering you. Best forgotton, indeed best not to mix this with the latest RFC. Which is unrelated. Not getting too emotionally involved in the latest seems like a good strategy as it looks like it will blow over quite soon (all the outside views are against further action). --Salix alba (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would not have bothered me at all except that the newest RFC is based on User:Rdsmith4's September 2, 2006 post to me. [13] which evokes an extremely painful period for me personally. It is clear that this incident in my personal life will forever be connected to my experience on Wikipedia. It is a nightmare replay of User:Ekajati. Now I am over the line and must fight off tremendous gloom. --Mattisse 17:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see

Dear Mattisse,

I feel really sorry to see all these. I don't understand why these should happen. We can all be good friends and enrich our activities and knowledge.

Anyway, the e-mail I sent you was before I knew all these. So I think you should disregard my request and I will try to fix the language again and if needed I will seek your help. I believe you. SamirShoovrow 14:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 9 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida State Hospital, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zaojing and Caisson (Asian architecture)

Hi there, the article you created, Zaojing, deals with the same subject as Caisson (Asian architecture). The two need to be merged. My view is that the merged article should be at Caisson (Asian architecture) due to Wikipedia's preference for English names, all things being equal. The use of the name "caisson" is by no means rare in English literature, and is certainly used as commonly, if not more, than the foreign name "zaojing". What do you think? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article zaojing is part of my attempt to create a vocabulary for Chinese architecture as I did for Indian architecture. In Indian architectural and historical articles, the editor would use the Indian word and the FA editors would want a link to that word with a definition. In that situation I was able to get away with it. In some situations I just had to force the European view to adjust to the addition of contrary information. One example is lintel where it aggravating redirects to Post and lintel which is a very narrow western view of the word. So I had to create an article lintel (architecture)

Of course we can force everyone to use one arbitrary definition for all architectural words. It seems that architecture is very slanted anyway to the Western European point of view and that all architectural terms reference Greek or Roman structures. This has happen on a number of terms, when actually the Chinese or some other civilization were building such structures thousands of years before. The word zaojing is used in Chinese architectural articles and will be used more as a body of articles in this area, neglected so far, is developed. I personally find it very annoying when I click on a work and the redirect/merge or whatever goes to some confusing other term.

Why don't you make the main article Zaojing? I believe it is much better referenced than the Caisson (Asian architecture) article (which is unreferenced last I looked). What are the references to Caisson (Asian architecture)? I have never seen it used in the architectural literature I consult. Zaojing is a well sourced article that was a DYK. I received many compliments from people who found the zaojing article interesting. I have never had cause to use Caisson (Asian architecture) and I do not know where that definition comes from. Is it also related to the concept of water and fear of fire? Also I am against merging zaojing into an inferior unsourced article with a title that has no meaning for my purposes. If necessary, I will change the article's name as I had to do with a recent DYK karez well system which was redirect to Qanat right when it was on the main page as a DYK. So I had to do a massive renaming to preserve it. And Qanat is a junky article primarily sourced from two University of Texas books. Very POV. Regards, --Mattisse 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references I used for Forbidden City call it "Caisson" rather than "zaojing". Most of your references at Zaojing also use "caisson" as the English name, with zaojing used to indicate the Chinese name. It seems to me that zaojing is more often found in Chinese-origin articles (i.e. written in English by Chinese people in Chinese-speaking regions). I reiterate that the two articles deal with identical subjects and need to be merged - the Roman/classical/European caisson is not within the scope of either article. Adding internal links back and forth doesn't help.

I have no doubt zaojing is better referenced. Perhaps any information not yet at Zaojing can be added from Caisson (Asian architecture) and the merged article placed at Caisson (Asian architecture).

Having the article at Caisson also has the advantage of presenting a better name according to naming policies, given that this is an architectural feature found basically identically throughout East Asia, and not just in China. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of references:

Yang, Xiagui (2003). The Invisible Palace. Beijing: Foreign Language Press. ISBN 7-119-03432-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Yu, Zhuoyun (1984). Palaces of the Forbidden City. New York: Viking. ISBN 0-670-53721-7. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Science and Civilisation in China. Volume I, Introductory Orientations by Joseph Needham

Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 47, No. 1. (Mar., 1988), pp. 57-73. (the last one is an interesting read, btw, if you haven't seen it already.)

If you do not object, I will start merging the contents of the two article to be placed at Caisson (Asian architecture)--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have re-created the previous version at Zaojing (Chinese). As the content of that article has been transferred to Caisson (Asian architecture), which (thanks in large part to your contents and references) is now the more detailed and better referenced version. I am redirecting Zaojing (Chinese) to Caisson (Asian architecture). If you feel there is anything left out in the transfer process, please edit the latter article to add it.

A note, also, that giving sources different titles in order to avoid reference to a name you don't like is not the way to go. Thanks, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your accusations on AN/I. It would be helpful if you would care to discuss the merits of the dispute by responding to my posts here and at Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) rather than escalating it. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't receive your objection when I redirected the article. You re-created the article at Zaojing (Chinese) instead of responding to these posts. However, let's do this properly. I will add the merge template. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

science awards

Hi Mattisse -- you know there is already a Category:Science and engineering awards? I'm going to do a CFD; the Category:Science awards and Category:Science and engineering awards should be combined. --lquilter 04:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisee - I responded briefly on my talk page, but I think it would be even better to have discussions at CFD, where other people can follow the conversation and chime in. --lquilter 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity

Your legal use definition is the best I have seen so far in that article, would you care to source it before someone deletes it as unsourced or so? Jenny ^Len☤ 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and your kind explanation. I think you are doing a nice work on that Jenny ^Len☤ 09:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop repeatedly posting the same mesage on my talk page.

It is my practice to keep the same conversation under the same heading, as is the normal practice on talk pages: in this case, under the #Zaojing and Caisson (Asian architecture) heading. If you would prefer that I act otherwise, you only need to post once on my talk page, not three times! Please don't be childish. Regards, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above

Okay Mattisse. I will add the templates as you requested and hopefully we can resolve the issue there.

As to Dougong, I reiterate that the bits in Caisson (Asian architecture) on Dougongs were added some time before you created the Dougong article. You are not the only person who has an interest in Chinese architecture. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying I am the only one. But you are not the only one either, and your approach is not the only one. I object to being shoehorned into your mentality. I do not like articles that combine everything into one article that I am unwilling to read to find out about the one word I want to know about. I am interested in Chinese architecture centuries older than you are. I know that when I click a link in an article and get a large article containing a bunch of combined information I don't want, I am annoyed and generally don't read the article. In the India architecture series we had great success with short, succinct articles explaining Indian words used in the Feature Articles we were working on. I am totally uninterested in the Forbidden City. I saw your Caisson article and did not like it for my purposes. I do not want to use Western terms for Chinese building that have Chinese terms. --Mattisse 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you mean by "combining" things. The term zaojing, and its translation caisson, is used to describe the tradition of sunken ceiling decorations in Chinese architecture, a tradition that consistently stretches back thousands of years.

I don't know where you are getting the idea from that the caissons in the Forbidden City are "completely different" from caissons in the Song Dynasty. It seems to me that they are part of an evolving tradition. A fortiori, all such structures are called zaojing in Chinese. I fail to see how you can arbitrarily declare that these are "true" zaojing and those are not "true" zaojing.

If you have no interest in the Forbidden City, that is fine. However, your disinterest is no excuse to excluding relevant sections from an article. Even if the article should be at Zaojing and not at Caisson, you still should discuss later and even modern usage of the same structure.

If you don't like an article "for your own purposes", you can't just go and start up a new article on the same subject under a different name. It would be like if I said "I don't like the structure of Buckingham Palace for my own purposes, so I'll go start a new article called The Building Formerly Known as Buckingham House." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Binion

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United States v. Binion, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/content/full/34/1/126. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wigington

Hope you've been watching the Clarence W. Wigington article, because I've added a lot more info relevant to the man's accomplishments in SP. Also, I proposed a sort of compromise to your rewording of the DYK on that talk page. • Freechild'sup? 22:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling my attention to that discrepancy. Its fixed. I'm glad we both appreciate Wigington's work. • Freechild'sup? 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I can find by way of a definition is a 1911 NYTimes article that sounds almost flippant about the job. Wigington was a municipal architect because he worked for a municipality. His early work in Omaha included a few houses, but it seems that his later design - which he is highly regarded for - was solely focused on public works. • Freechild'sup? 00:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message on Freechild's talk page. The reference I have, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities by Larry Millett, says: "Its designer and namesake ([of the Clarence W. Wigington Pavilion on Harriet Island]), Clarence Wigington, was the nation's first black municipal architect; he worked as a draftsman and later as chief designer for the St. Paul City Architect's office from 1915 until 1949." I guess that's the best definition of "municipal architect" that we can provide. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict ) - here is reply

There is no "should". I get my ideas from my architectural books. They use the word zaojing when Chinese architecture was basically Dougong, (classical Chinese architecture) before framed structures and masonry brick became popular. --Mattisse 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Competency evaluation (law), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

categorizing & engineering

Hi Mattisse. I noticed that you deleted the category Category:Engineering from Category:History of engineering. While the Category:Engineering needs to be cleaned up, the best way is by moving articles into subcategories -- not by removing relevant subcategories from Category:Engineering. "History of engineering" is by definition relevant to engineering, but removing the category from it makes it harder for editors to properly diffuse articles in engineering. Hope this is helpful; let me know if you want to talk more about categories. Cheers, Laura lquilter 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Lloyd price hits.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lloyd price hits.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. β^_command 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Close studding

Well, it isn't currently discussed in timber framing, which in fact fails to discuss any of the main types of framing used, so I'd contest such a move! Espresso Addict 23:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! I've not had many problems with architecture-related articles before now. I seem to spend rather too much of my wiki-time defending articles at AfD & deprodding articles that seem notable, but I've not yet spent much time fighting the merge-and-redirect approach to removing content. I do wonder sometimes precisely how we're meant to create an encyclopedia when many contributors seem proud of removing inoffensive content by one means or another.

PS I recall a guilty sensation that I never got back to you over drapetomania -- sorry! Though I do work from time to time on populating the deletion sort for medicine, I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently conversant with psychiatric issues to offer any specific advice. Have you tried asking over at WP Medicine? Other than that, peer review seems to have stopped offering human editor advice and become a bot-fest since I last used it, so there's really only Wikipedia:Requests for comment to try. Hope you can sort it out! Cheers, Espresso Addict 00:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Che

It is good to see that you are back editing the Che article. I am still a mere watcher. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am a little fearful of doing it. --Mattisse 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK head butting

I have responded to your comment at the DYK talk page, your input would be appreciated so that this can be resolved asap, so we can move on to more constructive work. IvoShandor 16:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in discussing it further. I will stay out of it except to nominate my own articles, which I think is O.K. --Mattisse 16:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer as you requested at the DYK talk page. As I said, I can easily copy edit else where as my going of helping was experienced as a hinderance. --Mattisse 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insanity defense

Just caught your updates. You have been working hard! Just that I thought it was only considered necessary to Wikilink the first occurrence of a phrase in an article? Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is generally the case, or the next occurrence in a new section, or after a chunk of text has gone by etc. I know in Feature Articles, more than on link is allowed under the above circumstances, especially if it is an unfamiliar word or term. But feel free to remove any you deem excessive. I am not doing an extensive evaluation of where they should go, I admit. --Mattisse 19:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, I can't get too bothered about it. Keep on keeping on. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 19:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Wanxing

You tagged one fact in the lead section with the {{fact}} tag. I believe all the pertinent facts are already referenced in the body of the article. Please could you advise what word(s) you find in need of specific referencing, and which one of the cited references may best apply. Thanks, Ohconfucius 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 13 October, 2007, a fact from the article Indo-Burma barrier, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Hey Stay off my talk page. IvoShandor 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK nomination for Jesse Bankston was successful

Did you know? was updated. On October 15, 2007, a fact from the article Jesse Bankston, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Corbett National Park

Hi,
Following a taxing rewrite of trade routes I have been busy writing relaxing articles under WikiProject Protected Areas. I have rewritten the Jim Corbett National Park article and am planning to nominate it for GA after some checking and re-checking (for which I'm currently too tired/blind). It would be of help to me if you could read the article and tell me what more needs to be done to push it to to GA. Personally, I think this fascinating article has solid FA potential.
With Regards,
Havelok 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured that you were busy and would reply when you had time. Since the GA review for Trade Routes is still pending and I may have to wait before Jim Corbett National Park gets reviewed I'll just bring Spice trade up to par in the meantime. That way I can get some work done and hopefully promote Spice trade to GA as well.
I'll keep you posted and will keep seeking suggestions from you,
With Regards,
Havelok 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one Major Ramsay actually. He was the one who evicted the tribals. Havelok 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyedit; In its new avatar the article will certainly do a better job in engaging a reader.Havelok 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sir. My fault sir, :-) Havelok 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Medicine deletion sorting page

Hi Mattisse! The page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine, but it looks like psychiatric abuse is already listed there. To list an article you just follow the instructions at the top of the page. In case you need them, the other deletion sort pages are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Cheers, Espresso Addict 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will bookmark that page. Don't know why I was so lost. Thanks! --Mattisse 17:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rennie v. Klein

On 15 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rennie v. Klein, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha

If you want my honest opinion, I think it is Caisson that needs to be merged into an article on zaojing (preferably as a separate explanatory section), not the other way around. I say this in consideration that it only focuses on the Forbidden City, while the zaojing covers a much wider time frame. That's just me, though.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Binion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggins v. Smith

On 16 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wiggins v. Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sorry

I accept your apology, and I will move on from here. I simply think that your comments were the straw that broke the camels back. I will talk with Ivo when I get back. I never discourage people from trying to make the Wikipedia a better place, but I do believe that unless you do not talk with a person on a regular basis, don't joke around with them in a matter they will take personally. That is the only advice I can give you, take it or leave as you see fit. I don't think you should stop with DYK, but just make constructive comments rather than destructive comments. Thanks for taking the time to contact me and good luck with your writings on the Wikipedia. I hope that you now understand that the reason he did a fourfer/fiver this was to allow for other DYK submitters to have the chance to have their articles posted, rather than having five seperate articles about basically the same subject post. To me, that is being thoughtful. Again, good luck and enjoy the Wikipedia for what it is.--Kranar drogin 21:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'd like to reach a compromise with the minimum fuss and inconvenience for everyone. I still haven't put up the merge templates because right now I don't have the time to initiate and moderate a big debate.

So I wonder if I could get your opinion on this question:

Do you agree that Caisson (in the Asian architectural context) and Zaojing are exactly the same thing?
- If yes, then the logical conclusion is to merge, and then it is just a question of which name to use;
- If no, I guess we will have to do a formal merger debate.

Thanks, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On dictionaries and whatnot

Dear Mattisse, I don't get why you don't trust the OED. It is way way more authoritative than your Random House dictionary. The Oxford English Dictionary is written by the top linguists in the Anglophone world, and is treated as the authority on the English language the world over. Seriously. Go and find it in your library. It's a dozen volumes. You won't miss it.

Architectural references that use "caisson" - if you do a simple JSTOR search on "caisson" + "china", you will find dozens of academic articles on classical Chinese architecture that use the term "caisson" as the English translation of "zaojing". I'm not asking you to trust me. Just do a JSTOR search.

Some of those sources I have cited in the article, others I have cited in my communications to you. Are you deliberately ignoring the sources, or do you just not have access to an academic library? Please let me know, because I am a bit baffled by your repeated responses denying the validity of articles on JSTOR and the OED. I won't even go into the online sources -- which you yourself used in zaojing -- that use "caisson" as the translation as the Chinese word "zaojing".

If this is a cultural issue, I apologise. Please let me know if we have a different conception of the status of academic artiles, JSTOR, and the OED due to a cultural issue. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further on dictionaries and whatnot

You keep talking about "lay man's terms". Have you seen the sources quoted by the OED for its definition? Did you even know that the OED quotes sources for its definitions? You might need to read Oxford English Dictionary before you make more comments on this field.

You keep on talking about lay man's terms. Did you even bother to do the JSTOR search I asked you to do? If you did, you might have noticed, for example, Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt, The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 47, No. 1. (Mar., 1988), pp. 57-73., which I had posted on your talk page many days ago -- an academic journal article that uses the "Caisson" as a translation of "zaojing". Please consult these sources and tell me why you think they are wrong.

I have quoted tonnes of sources - and you have too -- that show that "Caisson" is the English word for "zaojing". You have not quoted a single source that says it is not. If you have a bunch of reliable sources on the one hand supporting a proposition, and no reliable sources on the other hand denying it, then the proposition must stand, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Cheers, PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the link you gave above and it does not mention anything relevant to this discussion that I can see. Cheers. --Mattisse 15:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you have to resort to correct Wikipedia procedure

"I will try to hammer out a consensus with Mattisse because I just don't have the time to run a full merger debate. However, if all else fails, I guess we would have to resort to that."[14]

It is this attitude of yours as expressed in the above comment to PericlesofAthens that makes it difficult to interact with you.

Also, the comment to PericlesofAthens "PS, with regard to Mattisse's comments above: he is still talking about "his" sources and materials. I just don't get it."

Please advice the correct way to refer generally to the sources I have consulted without offending you.

My apologizes to you. Cheers. --Mattisse 14:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 17 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mitigating factor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Psychiatry article

Thanks for the nice comments, they were probably needed :). I'm actually going to be moving it to the main page very soon - as soon as I'm done with the lead section.

Yea, I was involved in some discussion of the psychiatric abuse article. I kind of liked the idea of having a single place documenting all incidents were "psychiatry" was used as "abuse" from a historical context. But the article turned into a POV soap box. I included a link to it in the main psychiatry article, then the article got deleted. So someone removed the link. Then a spinoff article was created and I introduced a link for that. Then that article got deleted. Now the psychiatric abuse article is there again, but has another AFD. haha, well, I'm going to let everyone cool down and figure out what to do with it before I reintroduce a link. At least that article provides a very entertaining discussion ;). Chupper 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question

Look, I'm not going to bother giving you links and sources, since the last time I posted one, you didn't even bother to read it thoroughly ("Checked the link you gave above and it does not mention anything relevant to this discussion that I can see.") What's more, you are so fixated on attacking the OED (incomprehensibly), that you repeatedly fail to see what I have said: the OED is the source for precisely one sentence in the article, a sentence about the usage of an English word. Even if you somehow succeed in impugning the OED and the sources it cites, that is just one sentence in the article, and it says nothing about the issue of merger. Nor do I think you have succeeded in impugning the OED and its sources - for example, Gwilt's Encyclopaedia of Architecture. The last time I checked, Gwilt is a much much more authoritative source than you. That's right, you, because you still haven't cited any sources to say a caisson is different from a zaojing - all we have is your own WP:OR.

Let me ask you one question, just answer it with a "yes" or a "no", so that I know exactly how far we disagree, and so which way we need to look to progress:

That question is: "Do you, or do you not, agree that caisson used in the Asian architectural context means exactly the same thing as the Chinese word zaojing?"

Please answer that question. This discussion cannot progress until it is clearly answered. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they both should be merged into coffer, as that is what Caisson (Asian architecture) clearly describes. On the Wiki Commons, the word "caisson" and "coffer" is used interchangeably for the ceiling type described in Caisson (Asian architecture). Used in this sense, zaojing is just another word for coffer. --Mattisse 13:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wiki Commons, the Forbidden City ceiling is in the category "Round ceiling".

Round ceiling

--Mattisse 13:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Corbett National Park

Your ongoing contributions to the article are really helping a lot. I have picked up valuable pointers from your work, especially your copyediting, and I know it'll help me make my own edits better.
Havelok 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If luck favors then I may get more images for the article. One of my friends says that he may be of help but it's taking way too much time. I've even asked on good old Flickr ! Havelok 16:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its Ok

I understand. I will let you know as soon as I need another serious kind of help. But if you read it in the user: mattisse/2 page and have some suggession on my writing style, that would be nice. I just might be seeking more help in the near future. Shoovrow 17:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to find

Just type User: Mattisse/2 in the search box in the left of wiki.Shoovrow 18:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK: Bigby v. Dretke

On 19 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bigby v. Dretke, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 09:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas v. Hendricks

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Kansas v. Hendricks, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://web.utk.edu/~scheb/Hendricks.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 18:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can have the article. Go ahead and delete it. I have lost interest. --Mattisse 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rorschach pic in Clinical Psychology article

(Undeleted Rorschach sample pic)

Actually, in graduate school and post graduate school, psychologists are taught that it is ethically wrong to publish psychological tests. It is not a question of copyright. It invalidates the test. That is the problem. But, of course, I do not expect wikipedia to respect this sort of thing. But it is unethical for a psychologist to publish a Rorschack card. And that is an actual card, one out of ten. So 10% of the test is invalid for all who see that card. Is it worth it, do you think? I know wikipedia is not concerned with ethics, but.....? --Mattisse 01:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters very much, but all ten Rorschach cards are already available on-line on a Spanish website linked to the Wikipedia Rorschach article. I have seen them on the web before, many times. Clinical secrets like these have brief lives. NRPanikker 01:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't expect you to understand. It has to do with the ethically standards of a professional, licensed psychologist. Perhaps you belong to a profession that has ethical standards, that although violating them is not against the law, you as a professional could not ethically condone. It is an ethical question for psychologists so it will make any psychologist queasy to see that done. I know what you are saying is true. It is easily available in unauthorized places, so is pornography and I guess wikipedia has no standards about that either. People differ. --Mattisse 01:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are freed from Psychiatric abuse

Hurrah! Gone at last.Merkinsmum 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! A miracle. But do not cease vigilance as the POV psychiatry people are not going to stop that easily. --Mattisse 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CorenSearchBot

Hi, please please please do not be so sensitive to the actions of this bot. All it is saying is that text in your article matches text somewhere else on the Internet. If you are citing text from public domain sources, this is going to happen. But the bot is only raising the issue. It is not deciding it, and it is not passing judgment. Your article will not be deleted unless a human editor decides you have violated some copyright. You are free to delete the CorenSearchBot tag from your article. Just leave an edit summary along the lines of "PD source" and all will be well.

Incidentally, this bot only checks new articles for copied text. It is too difficult to have it evaluate older pages because many other websites copy content from Wikipedia, and there is no way for the bot to know which came first.

Please continue to contribute here, even if an article is tagged, and please do not throw the baby that is this helpful bot out with the bathwater of the occasional unwarranted tags. Thank you!!! -- But|seriously|folks 04:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining about the general concept of the bot. I am complaining about the consistent tagging within one minute of the creating of an article. I am also complaining that it accused me of copyvio of a page that was itself a copyvio. That page was a copvio page of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on a student page in the U.K. I gave a footnote reference to the Supreme Court wording. What is the reasoning of the bot to do that? Why can't the bot wait more than one minute of article creating? I thought there were rules against instantly tagging a possibly good faith article on wikipedia within the same minute it is created. I will have to figure out a way to trick the bot if I am going to create any more U.S. Supreme Court decision articles. --Mattisse 13:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I'm sorry to hear that you are frustrated with the bot. Several other established editors have complained about it. I recommended at WP:AN/I that the bot not tag the article and not notify the article creator, but instead list the page at WP:SCV and let the editors their make an informed (human) judgment. If that were the case, then making Supreme Court decision articles might be less stressful. :) This is the second time that I have recommended, so we'll see what happens. :) --Iamunknown 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm glad to hear there are others and it is not just me. And I do not understanding the reasoning behind tagging a footnote referenced article within one minute of it's creation. --Mattisse 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are freed from Psychiatric abuse

Hurrah! Gone at last.Merkinsmum 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! A miracle. But do not cease vigilance as the POV psychiatry people are not going to stop that easily. --Mattisse 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Coasters single yakety.yak.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Coasters single yakety.yak.gif. 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. BetacommandBot 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

turn to spiritism

You could have a laugh by looking at the innumerable, immaculately NPOV lol articles about Spiritism. I sense a lot of potential merges.Merkinsmum 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spiritualism, spiritism. Article been hijacked by one definition of the term (one religion- I was searching for a more general discussion of what's meant by the term, but the article just goes into the beliefs of a sect I hadn't really heard of- Kardecists, followers of one Allan Kardec. I'm off to sleep soon but article is full of unnecessary blather about historical figures which inspired this sect's creator. (doesn't sound much different to spiritualism really.)

Then the tangential articles

Spiritist_Codification as well as articles about each of the books. Spiritist doctrine Spiritist practice Spiritist centre History of Spiritism

I don't think these or all the probably numerous offshoots are noteable. But maybe I'm just disgruntled because I expected the 'spiritism' article to be about something more exciting than this sect. There's been some discussion on the talk page in the past about whether the article should be about this one sect or the wider meaning of the word. Sect seems to be more well known-so they claim- in Brazil. Might take your mind of things anyway lolMerkinsmum 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Copyvio

My comments were based upon the statements you have made in general regarding this situation. However, yes, I did look at the article. I also took your comment that you quoted all the text that you had reused in good faith and as such made this recommendation. However, it was then pointed out to me that the portion of your article that states:

procedures for the civil commitment of persons who, due to "mental abnormality" or "personality disorder" are likely to engage in "predatory acts of sexual violence."

is a word for word duplicate of the source you provided (even the quotes are in the source) and it is not indicated in anyway as being a quote of the source. You appear to have reused text without marking it as a quotation. If the source is public domain, then reusing it was fine. However, you have left me confused as you have stated that the other site is violating the copyright of your source, but if it's public domain, then it's not a copyright violation. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for this. I suggest you read WP:POINT. bbatsell did not say it was a copyvio. He said it wasn't obvious it wasn't. And he's correct. If text matches between two sites, then investigation needs to be done to determine if there is an issue. In this case, there wasn't, but there is no way to tell without checking the status of the other site. -- JLaTondre 18:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to tag your articles as {{db-author}}. However, remember that applies to only articles that you are the only contributor. If you apply it to other articles, it could be considered disruption. I think you are taking this way to seriously as no editor has accused you of copyvios and a bot is not a person. I'd suggest you take a short break and decide if this is really what you want instead of acting when you are upset. -- JLaTondre 18:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive. If you do it again, I will block you. I would appreciate it if you'd remove the {{copyvio}} notices from the articles in question and Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 20/Articles. --W.marsh 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to comment here, and I hope that other Wikipedians will read this. A couple of days ago I went through more of Mattisse's Supreme Court articles and noticed that many of them included parts that were copied directly from their sources, thereby committing copyvio. Mattisse has a history of disruptive use as you can see in his/her Talk archives. Most of this is due to tagging hundreds of articles a day and trying to make a point. When someone disagrees with him/her, Mattisse resorts to claiming harassment and saying he/she will quit Wikipedia. I believe Mattisse's history should be known when more claims of difficulty with the user come up. - Cyborg Ninja 17:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyborg Ninja, this is not a bulletin board for you to post messages to other editors. Please respond to comments by other editors on their talk page. Your behavior is totally inappropriate. This time I will forward your message to the other editor. Please do not post on my talk page again. --Mattisse 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyborg Ninja's message has been forwarded to W.marsh. --Mattisse 17:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. For some reason I am of deep, deep interest to Cyborg Ninja. Cyborg Ninja is fascinated with everything I do!--Mattisse 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tags

I've noticed you've been adding inline cite tags to many articles that are not GA or FA candidates. I do not think this is required, especially when there is a references section. If there is such a requirement, please advise. Tks. Rlevse 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a guideline, policy, or whatever. "Requirement" on Wikipedia is to strong a word. But it does say in WP:Footnotes or WP:CITE or someplace that a "bunch of links at the bottom" is not good enough. We have been through this many times on ANI, but I can try to rustle up some "big guns" if you want. I just looked in WP:Footnotes and it says "must have". I know on the DYK they require the hooks to be cited in the article to set a good standard for editors here. We are trying to raise the standards on Wikipedia in general, and that is one of the issues that is being focused on. Also, as you probably know, any material that is not specifically referenced can be removed by any editor, so properly sourcing it is a way of protecting material. --Mattisse 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it has nothing to do with GA candidates, nothing whatsoever. --Mattisse 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at WP:Footnote and it says some must have, so that'd be a judgement call. I also think it'd be more productive to tag articles that have no refs vice ones that have none. Rlevse 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a judgment call too. I know that removing tags without fixing the problem can get you into trouble. We have been through that on ANI too. --Mattisse 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I check up on you and see if you are doing that? --Mattisse 00:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Cyborg Ninja

Following your message to my talkpage and my review of the diffs provided I have placed a warning and comment on the above editors talkpage. Should Cyborg Ninja continue harassing you then I suggest you take it to WP:ANI... again. I would comment that it does not help you if you place a complaint and then retract it for any reason other than it has been resolved or you conclude there was no case - striking for lack of action/interest may disadvantage any future complaints. However, whatever actions you may have taken does not permit another editor to harass you - but if you wish to continue editing in peace you must be prepared to take appropriate action. LessHeard vanU 12:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU 19:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 22 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chris Hatcher (psychologist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lordship Lane (Haringey)

Greetings,

You recently added a Cleanup tag to Lordship Lane (Haringey) with the comment "very messy lists, formatting is screwed up, many red links". You may be right. However the article has been in that format for quite a while and edited by many...

It is an article that describes a street in London that is of some historical interest throughout much of its length. This led us to want to describe it section by section and provide photos for many of it's "blocks". It is formatted in a way that keeps these pictures alongside the text that refers to them. If you can suggest a better way to achieve this then please do so. If not, then while not a conventional layout there is nothing wrong with it (Wikipedia does not mandate any particular layout for an article but encourages editors to "be bold").

The red links are mostly "cross streets" and may well merit articles of their own, so again there is a reason for them and no Wikipedia policy that mandates their removal.

In the light of the above, could you be persuaded to take a look at the article again with a view to understanding it for what it is and removing the tag?

And, out of nothing but naked curiosity, what caused you to visit the page in the first place?

-Arb. 16:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I has been recommended to me by admins to use the Random Links in the Wikipedia menu for such tasks. That avoids the problem of article editors feeling that their article was singled out for some reason. I was particularly in need of getting my attention off some article problems here on Wikipeda, so I took their advice to do just that. In that way I came across you article. Tags are a great way of drawing attention to article problems, especially now that Wikipedia's profile has risen and there is a massive attempt to improve standards and improve articles accordingly. A Cleanup tag, in the best of all worlds, will draw the attention of a cleanup specialist, as the tag sorts the article into the category where cleanup artists work. Further, if you would like, I can attempt to help with the article. Also, Technical Pump people are surprising good at coming up with suggestions. Certainly I am willing to look at the tag and consider removing it, especially since you are working on the problem and not just ignoring it. I do wish also that you consider the benefits of having it there. A tag is not a stigma as some people regard it, merely an acknowledgment that help would be appreciate. Sincerely, --Mattisse 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DYK question

Hi Mattisse. Thanks for nominating my Muslim Agricultural Revolution article, although it seems it's been nomanated twice in Template talk:Did you know (by you and User:PFHLai). I created the page yesterday on 21 October, so PFHLai probably made a mistake with the date. Both hooks are good enough to me though, so I don't really mind leaving your hook as an alternate hook. Maybe both hooks could be merged together? Jagged 85 21:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Capital Jury Project, was selected for DYK!

On October 23, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capital Jury Project, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that rant at ANI

Sorry about that crazy semi-rant at ANI. I was just trying to write that whole long paragraph and get edit conflicted after edit conflicted out (I hope you see that I spent quite a bit of time looking for background information). I'll admit I went too far but once you striked the whole thing out, I lost it. Thank you so much for that short paragraph. That sometimes accomplishes a lot more than long detailed explanations. Still, from what I see, the Wmarsh stuff is a completely separate issue, correct? I'm sorry about being so picky but it's a lot easier if separate issues can be ignored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Notability is a problem, and it's a serious one, because WP:N is the policy that separates Wikipedia from the indiscriminate directories of the Internet.

There are certain types of articles (roads, places, television shows, CD's, etc.) that seem to have developed immunity from WP:N. If you send one to AfD, you will hear a lot of "X is inherently notable", which I translate as "the community has decided to include all of X", which, while not my preference, appears to be correct, so I just live with it.

For other types of articles, I try to tag (or delete) them when I see them. Yes, there is often a backlash, but I take solace in the fact that I am staying true to Wikipedia's ideals. I think . . . -- But|seriously|folks 18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a horrifying story! I will try to be careful, but without being cowed by the spammers. -- But|seriously|folks 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, there are some people who will take offense at the most innocuous comment. Perhaps they have a driving need to feel relevant, and their perception that someone has taken the time and effort to slight them satisfies this need. But you are correct -- it's generally better to remain "professional" with strangers online, until you get to know that they can take a joke. -- But|seriously|folks 20:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! --Mattisse 20:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no probs

Then that Ricky bloke saw your point too. Try not to despair too much over the unfairnesses of wikip. Even this 'cyborg nina' is not an admin or owt so will no doubt be blocked at some point. :) 'This, too, shall pass' :) Merkinsmum 02:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message to User:Cyborg Ninja

Get a life. I am flattered that I fascinate you so that you have dedicated your Wikipedia experience to me. But it does show a gulf in your own life, that I am the best you can do. I wonder what it is that is so intriguing and fascinates you so about me? Is is perhaps, that all you have to offer is to crawl around offering others help in how to get me into trouble?

Well, it is people like you that make Wikipedia hell. You can chalk up my departure as a notch on your bed post. Good lock with your notches, since apparently you have nothing else to offer. Wikipedia needs people like you. (ha, ha, ha -- that is a joke for those who cannot tell -- Blueboar, the Good, for example). You and Blueboar with go far together -- cut from the same cookie cutter so to speak.

I will recommend to you to get a life but I do not think you are capable of doing so. --Mattisse 02:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add esamples from your posting on your page but they are so idiodic I will not bother. Othrs are free to look. Mattisse 02:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't Go

Let's just say I found about this from a friend of a friend. A few months ago myself and another editor found ourselves in a similar situation to you, a few users were grouping together against our edits and I ended up getting blocked a couple of times for 3RR. It got really frustrating, an RfC got sidetracked as they tried to critique our behaviour rather than the content dispute and eventually I just lost it and said a couple of things that got my account blocked indefinitely after over a year of editing. Looking back, I regret it, one of the users against me later got blocked when it was realised he was just here to troll, another was sanctioned in a separate incident. Eventually the content dispute got settled, the larger community found out about the dispute and set it straight. The end result was I got my established account banned for a dispute that really didn't need me to sort it out.

You are a highly regarded editor, with over 30,000 edits, a year and a half of editing and more awards and DIK's then I can count. Is it really worth sacrificing all this hard work over a single dispute? I implore that rather than exercising your right to vanish you should take a step back from the issue for a minute, that you consider the various options available both to mediate with the other users in the absence of personal attacks and sock puppetry and under the guidance of highly established editors, and even if this fails you will still have gained the interest of the greater community who will by able to voice their input and ensure that you are not fighting the uphill battle on your own.

Really, what I'm trying to say is that wikipedia needs highly skilled and qualified editors such as yourself to ensure the ongoing integrity of the project. If you do have a case (and looking over your contributions its seems you do) then the community will stand behind you, you just need to get their attention. So please, take a moment to think about your decision, the consequences it will bear for both you and the encyclopedia, and whether you will look back in the future and regret letting an editing dispute overshadow your ongoing commitment and exemplary work. 124.183.102.25 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The above comment by an IP was put down as stupid on another page, so it is clear it is a hoax I have contributed to Wikipedia. I am pure evil.

User 67.173.131.28

This anonymous editor seems to have an interest in DYK articles for Illinois. He made negative commens on a running ANI thread for people who want to say various negative things about me. Could it have to do with DYK Illinois article dust up recently?

After all, it is open house on me now for every misstep. Recently I made a compliment to a person for achieving many DYK's -- that was taken as a personal attack on DYK and I was beat up by the regulars there for being a horrible person. So I know better than to make compliments now. Is that why User 67.173.131.28 feels his comment is necessary? Mattisse 18:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re your block

Blueboar had nothing to do with my blocking of you; it was a report to WP:ANI (per here) by Ninja Cyborg. I blocked Ninja Cyborg for harassment, per my previous warning and discussions, and then reviewed the matter. While reviewing the discussions at Caisson I noted your comments and attitude toward Blueboar, which I believed was highly inappropriate - so much so I issued a block. I noted my actions at ANI. At no time did I comment to Blueboar, nor had he ever sought my (or anybody elses AFAIAW) interaction before my deciding to take these actions. He has now contacted me regarding your comments above. These actions were entirely mine, and I am fully prepared to take the consequences. I believe you owe Blueboar an apology for both your previous attitude and your recent comments.

Your block was for 24 hours. I shall not extend it (my block) as regards your subsequent comments (although I could, WP does not tolerate threats) and it is up to you how you act once the block expires. LessHeard vanU 13:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU - you are a WP:DICK

I do not want your charity of "I shall not extend it (my block) as regards your subsequent comments (although I could...."

Wikipedia, in theory at least, does not have the bludgeoning attitude you do. However, it is people like you who run this place and create such negativity here by punishing productive editors.

Your attitude has made it clear the true ugliness of Wikipedia. I am vanishing forever, so you can go exercise you power on some other person's poor plight by your punitive attitude. Your attitude is a main contributor of why I am vanishing. You do not help Wikipedia by your authoritarian behavior.

Mattisse 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU reasons for block

I saw on your user page your reasons for blocking me. I was curious as you had never informed me. How can I learn if I am not informed?

I would appreciate your explanation as I do not see what I wrote as attacks or incivility but merely an honest effort to get a response that made sense.

Further, I would appreciate an explanation of how this whole issue was drawn to you attention so that you felt a block with NO WARNING AFTER I HAD DISENGAGED FROM THE ISSUE was justified? Mattisse 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Wikipedia allows another editor to behave as you did toward Blueboar. Warnings are a means to prevent disruption, but are not mandatory (and are not a license to act contrary to the rules until you receive a full set), and any admin can impose a short block if they feel that it is appropriate. Whatever difficulties you have had with other editors actions with you does not excuse poor behaviour on your behalf, and if you are unable to recognise that you were extremely incivil toward Blueboar, questioning both his good faith efforts on your behalf, the language used and the accusations made, and that they did not constitute personal attacks then I fear that you are unlikely to learn anything from this incident. As mentioned, I was made aware of the matter when I read a post to ANI by Ninja Cyborg - whom I immediately blocked (again for 24 hours) for violating the warning I gave them, plus the subsequent discussions, for stalking you and advocating various actions - and I decided to review the situation. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LessHear - which I am all for if you are less hear

Perhaps you were "technically" right but you brought down Wikipedia another notch. You still have not provided specific instances on my lack of civility so I have learned exactly nothing from this event except the Less Heard the better.

I cannot learn anything from long paragraphs of diffs. Please provide specific examples of exactly what I said that set you off.

Please explain how the diffs you provided support your block, especially in the context of all the personal attacks that were being made against me at the time? Please provide specific examples, as the diffs were long paragraphs where I saw nothing on the level of personal attack that I had been enduring for weeks. I will learn exactly nothig if you do not show me specifically what I did wrong.

You did not see anything in the mediation pages, nor on Blueboar pages that were personal attacks on me? I find that hard to believe. I had complained about Coborg Ninja about before with no result so I don't think the little move of yours counts for much. Who cares if she get banned. She has not done much for Wikipedia recently any way, except play you into blocking me to further harass me.

I cannot believe that you looked through PalaceGuard008's talk page (especially all the ugly messages he routinely deletes, the way he refused to carry on the discussion on the article talk page but insisted on posting on my page or his, that you looked through all the insults and personal attacks in the mediation (an already flamable situation) and saw no personal attacks on me. You act like you are from Austrialia as you behavior is very similar to that of PlalaceGuard008. It is certainly more important to Wikipedia to chase away good editors like me anyway and avoid trying to to encourage or protect nontechnical editors. So good luck to you in your crusade to deep six quality editing on Wikipedia. You are on a good start. --Mattisse 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tea!

☻ Someone has poured you Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down.Merkinsmum 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar's sensitivity

I made those statements to you because you made such an issue that I was "too sensitive" whenever I requested that you ask PlacaGuard008 to tone down his personal attacks on me.

Also, you could have requested that Cyborg Ninja stop making personal attacks on me on you user page.Instead you encouraged her. She was blocked for doing so, but not because of anything you saw inappropriate in her remarks. Now it turns out that you are hypersensitive.

I helped you and MSJapan when you were being accused of being sock puppets this spring. I would think you would appreciate that and not punish me for my help. Now you see out to trash all my articles and make a mountain out of a mole hill.

In other words, for whatever indiscretions and poor judgment I may have engaged in, and certainly not out of bad faith or desire to hurt, but because I did not understand why you were willing to take advantage of my hard work, then criticized me for so many things, including my wondering why PalaceGuard did not respond to the mediation while he was busy editing other articles, and then you criticized me for not responding promptly. (And I was having problems with my internet connection.) I was the one who cooperated and provided you with the list which you used and then PalaceGuard008 refused to follow the procedures you set up for answering.

You certainly cannot claim the high ground on the sensitivity issue as you seem to be highly sensitive to honest efforts I made to explain my position after I had explained it many times before. I do not understand you efforts against me when I tried my best. I believe I have the right to think poorly of you. Especially now that I see you continuing to enter on ANI remove my articles and in other ways do harm to me. You are not a kind person and you seem to be taking pleasure in revenge on me in unison with PalaceGuard and Cyborg Ninja. Mattisse 17:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs/tips

Course I will continue to be your friend :) I hope you keep going on wiki- glad you feel a tiny bit more able to do so. Are you on many other sites online? I tend to like forums but am liking wikip a lot at the mo.

Tips? I take lamotrigine.:) (seriously) and I've done a lot of work on myself to try and not be quite as hurt by things. Surprisingly I even found it helped me change my state of mind to read a certain banned site. (Google the word 'butthurt' which I hadn't really heard of before what with being from the UK- not having a go at your attitude, it more describes me lol.)

This bloke [15] (sorry I don't know how to more easily quote diffs) was one of the first and evillest comments I suffered on wikip. I was shocked! (for some reason.) But my other half said 'don't write anything on the internet unless you are prepared to be slagged off.' Because people can't see your face and know they probably won't get slapped in return, they just say what they want.

If I find an article and the people involved really get on my nerves, such as Morgellons, I just don't look at that article unless I feel like a small dose of it. This is a brill article I found from User:Rray's page- WP:F*** :) Hope this helps.Merkinsmum 21:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mail

You have mail babs :)Merkinsmum 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Very much appreciated as is your support in these unhappy times. Mattisse 01:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post messages at the bottom on my page under a heading if you want me to be able to find them and read them

I would be greatly appreciated if you did this. Otherwise I cannot read them. Mattisse 03:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot make head nor tails of you message. To me is is gobblygook. Mattisse 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

You are saying that "PalaceGuard008 continues to prolong issue" but right now you seem to be prolonging some of the issues. Palaceguard008 keeps removing your comments to him from his talk page. Perfectly legal per WP:TALK and WP:USER guidelines. But, yet, you keep posting to his talk page and then complain to him--by posting to his talk page--about him removing your posts. It's obvious he's trying to stop part of this conflict by just avoiding things yet you're still prodding at him. Bare that in mind rather than trying to continue your actions towards him. Metros 04:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions

Mattisse, you handled this situation very poorly. Although I have not really looked into this whole debate, it's fairly evident that you continued to pursue this matter, despite your request for other users to stop attacking/harassing you. Please just drop the matter, and contribute to the encyclopedia. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me the right to vanish

I am requestioning the right to vanish. --Mattisse 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still wanting to vanish? I'm confused. If you are, let us know and your pages can be deleted as you wish, but if you are not, please consider removing the threat to vandalize that is at the top of your page. If it's a threat you mean, then I'm not sure you fit in here, and if it's a threat you don't mean, I don't think it should remain. Just some friendly advice. ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No threat to vanish now

(Refactored per my policy)

I repent it. I was over the hill. I apologize completely. Should I delete the vandal threat or what? How do I get rid of it? I thought deleting was not allowed. I will do what you say. I am very ashamed of the threat. Sincerely, --Mattisse 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just edit it away from the top of this page and that would be that. You can edit your own user and user talk pages, it's when you repeatedly delete warnings that some admins get concerned. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I was at a loss how to handle this. You are very kind. --Mattisse 22:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Even I am not an expert in this area, but for best of Wiki-knowledge, it is always recommended to upload images in commons, so that it can be used by all language wikipedias across the world. The copyright rules and policies of Wikipedia is same and consistent with English language wikipedia and wikicommons. Only real concern, I see, is: The notification on commons talk page may not be seen every day. There must be some mechanism for automatic notification into our English wikipedia user talk pages. I will see, if there is any way. Thanks for your informative and timely note. - KNM ^Talk 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Glad you like them- you'll have to mail when you've looked a bit and let me know which sites/parts you particularly enjoy.:)Merkinsmum 02:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I hadn't read your refraction policy you posted further up before I wrote that- v sensible and something quite a few people do:)Merkinsmum 02:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Beard v. Banks, was selected for DYK!

On November 3, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beard v. Banks, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents noticeboard

Hey Mattisse, not sure why you haven't been notified yet, but there is a thread at AN/I regarding you. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of Mattisse's Talk page. --Iamunknown 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about AN/I. In reading through it, the issues seem to be either non issues or mostly old stuff already dealt with, some of it over and over (and some of it settled 1 1/2 years ago), so there is no more for me to add. This Cyborg Ninja stuff has been going on for some weeks now, and responding in any way or asking for help with it just gets me into trouble. User:Lar very kindly helped me clean up my talk page after my recent block and so I have moved on. Unless you think I should do something, I would rather just ignore it and get back to editing. Thanks for keeping me in touch with what's going on. --Mattisse 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your choice to ignore and edit is fine. I am amazed at how many DYK messages you get! :)

By the way, seeing as how you edit quite a few case law articles, could you check out Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp. et al.? I was working on it, and have reached an impasse -- I am not sure where relevant sources might be. Any suggestions would be appreciated. :) Cheers, Iamunknown 04:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will try. I find these law cases extremely hard to figure out though, so I may have no more success than you! Mattisse 13:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One note about copyvios....

....when something is illegal to put in an article, it's also illegal to put it on the talk page. So copying text to the talk page, as you did at SQL-Ledger, actually makes things worse, not better. Just a note - and thanks for caring! --Alvestrand 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing something to your notice

Hi Mattisse. I have been requested (at my talk page) to bring Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture) to your attention, since you have been named as a party. I was told that you were told about it already but may have overlooked it or inavertantly deleted it en masse. Typically it is considered polite to respond to such requests, even if your response is that you do not wish to participate. Would you be so kind as to take the time to respond at the page? You can respond in the section Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Caisson_(Asian_architecture)#Parties.27_agreement_to_mediate. I hope this has been helpful to you, happy editing. (feel free to respond here if you want to discuss this with me, or at my talk page, as you like, but I may refactor to keep threads together)... ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture).

For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sell v. United States

On 7 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sell v. United States, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Keep up the good work! :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Barry Cohen (attorney)

A tag has been placed on Barry Cohen (attorney), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read our the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Treygdor 22:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add the POV or COI tags. Though I don't necessarily disagree. "His unconventional legal tactics are legendary." How is that even remotely NPOV? It is blatant hyperbole. Though it appears he may be notable enough to be here, so I withdraw my speedy deletion request (though it was already removed anyway). Treygdor 23:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to happen on the J. Vernon McGee page?

For what reasons did you add these flags to the J. Vernon McGee page?

This article does not cite any references or sources.

What, specifically, do you want documentation for? Please add the "citation needed" tag, where appropriate.

Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

What is in danger of being removed?

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

What seems not to be neutral?

Please see the discussion on the talk page.

Not found.

Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

What do you want to see for this to happen?

Please elaborate on the article's talk page. --Ac44ck 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Cohen

I have explained my changes on the talk page, so hope you won't hate me for them lol.:) Please don't give up on the article or your other articles if you encounter stuff like this, it's all a learning curve and don't be put off if there've been hasty tags etc as that's been decided in your favour by other eds very quickly really.Merkinsmum 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I just did an article on the Hyde Amendment (1997) which got some of my need to write about Barry Cohen out of my system. Mattisse 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the BC article. I imagine he's quite hard to make encyclopedic, because he/his cases are often written about in a shock/scandalous tone.:) P.S. Have you looked at one or two of the links I sent you? I don't think you have to sign in or owt just to read most of them.Merkinsmum 21:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at them but they are confusing. I'm not an internet culture person so I will have to learn how by grazing around them a bit. In fact, I'm not sure what many of them are talking about. I know there are other wiki's also. I am getting very tired of this one and need to look around more. I just installed some sort of Wikipedia addon to my browser. Not quite sure what the advantages of it are. Now my name button doesn't work. After a year of not knowing about it to begin with, now I've grown to depend on it! Mattisse 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging articles only of active, personal interest

A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

I am cooperating with the suggestion here WP:AN/I:

Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page.

I was disturbed by your "Tagging is fun" and "I will go around tagging article now" comments here Talk:Barry_Cohen_(attorney) after finding:

Tags-without-explanations (or follow-through on the article's talk page) here J. Vernon McGee, and
What looks like a history of similar activity recorded here Special:Contributions/Mattisse.

Editors are expected to assume good faith -- which requires an assumption that tagging was added to an article in good faith. As such, those who have an interest in the tagged article may be motivated divert their attention to correct whatever problem the tag identifies.

The tagging of numerous articles:

which appear to be of no obvious interest (by virtue of the variety of subject matters involved and an absence of any previous editing activity in the articles tagged)
by one who is of the opinion that "Tagging is fun"

would seem to be consistent with:

Bad faith editing can include ... playing games with policies

as mentioned in WP:AGF.

This activity is also the subject of discussions here:

Please refrain from distracting editors whose time might be better-spent in making more significant improvements to other articles, where the challenges were raised in good faith. Thanks. --Ac44ck 01:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posted twice on the article page as you requested I do

Hi! If you are talking about J. Vernon McGee, I did post it on the article page (as you requested) [16] where you requested I do so. Here:[17][18]

Mattisse 01:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by "without follow-through" was:

The NPOV tag said "Please see the discussion on the talk page." But there was no discussion about the tag until I raised the question on the article's talk page and here.
The NPOV issue wasn't separated on the talk page until I did it.
I'm still at a loss concerning the extent of "verification" originally requested and now being insisted upon by another. It could be a full time job tracking down multiple "objective" sources for things which I don't suppose are in question. The website which continues his ministry says that he died on a specific date in 1988. That sounds about right to me. I think it would be silly to search out and post a link to an obit in some newspaper to make it "verifiable". I have no reason to suspect that the people who are honoring the man lied about when he died.

Thanks. --Ac44ck 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not your article. Anyone can add or subtract from it. Only unsourced material cannot be removed, unless you have a better source. Also, you are not supposed to remove a tag without fixing the problem. Why don't we get a third party opinion? Let's do that or get an informal mediator. How about it? Mattisse 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One venue you might try is Wikipedia:Third opinion, which is very informal. --Iamunknown 02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will do. Also, I have not forgotten about the law article. And I will give it a try. Mattisse 02:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I saw on my watchlist that you added a link! Thanks for helping out. :-) --Iamunknown 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not my article. I never claimed otherwise. Nor do I see the ability to add tags as a reason to jerk others around.

I removed the tags because they seemed to be among a multitude of tags which were inserted in that and other articles for "fun".

Why do you care about this article? Are you not able to fix whatever problems you see in it?

What specific items do you want mediated?

The NPOV items are separated on the talk page. Are you not happy with those? If not, you might fix them. If you put the NPOV tag back in, are you going to be part of the resolution process? Are you going to offer a clue as to what "the dispute is resolved" means to you? If not, how might we know when you are satisfied with the result and it is "safe" to remove the tag?

Is there a list of "unverified" items which are in dispute? Do you want a link to a third-party obit? Is that level of detail required in all articles? No. So why waste time tracking down a bunch of details which seem adequately documented in the link already provided -- only to hear, "I didn't care about those."?

If you have specific items that you want addressed, please list them in the article's talk page. Again, how else is one to know when it is "safe" to remove the tag?

I see nothing specific to be addressed. So what is there to be mediated? --Ac44ck 03:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the tag issue needs to be addressed. You seem to feel that because you "see nothing specific to be addressed", that means I am not allowed to address issues in the article that I see. The fact that you see nothing to be addressed, when you are disputing with me, is a problem in itself, as it is not up to you to determine whether issues need to be address or not. If you do not want an informal mediation or third party opinion, then we can move up to Dispute Resolution. Mattisse 03:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third party sources; policy, why; how to, etc. copied from Talk:J. Vernon McGee & referring to J. Vernon McGee

There is no doubt the subject of this article is notable. The issue then is the reliability of sources, the problem with the existing sources and how to source. As there seems to be a some misunderstandings about what is being asked and tension levels seems to be high, I am hoping to defuse by explaining these matters in some detail and suggesting some things that can be done.

First, please look at any article that is a featured article to see what a full sourced article looks like. Note that the lead section in many contain no sources only because it summarizes information contained later in the article which is sourced.

So why does this article (and every article on Wikipedia) require sourcing? Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is by definition a tertiary source which synthesizes already published information for its information. Note that there are many articles which are unsourced. This is a terrible problem and not a basis to say "why are you focusing on my article when these other don't comply?" Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

We have basically four fundamental policies involved in this area. The first, Wikipedia:Notability covers topics. It asks whether the topic is notable, by asking whether there exists reliable, independent sources which treat the subject in detail and stresses that sources on Wikipedia should be secondary sources. The answer here appears to be that such material exists, (though none of those sources have yet been cited), so we need not worry about this one.

A second policy is verifiability. It speaks to material in articles, rather than the topic as a whole, and requires that any reader be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged." "Any edit lacking a source may be removed." The burden of providing verification so is on the person adding the material. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

This works hand in hand with the last two policies, Wikipedia: No original research and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. The former, as the name implies, prohibits original research: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, nor a forum for promoting one's own point of view; all material must be verifiable" and requires sourcing to show that you are not publishing original thought. The latter requires that material in articles represent "...fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors."

As you can see, all these policies have in commmon the requirement of citation to independent, reliable, secondary sources. It's no surprise then that we have guidelines on how to cite sources and on what constitutes a reliable source.

In order to cite a source, place at the bottom of the article a section called references with the software markup {{reflist}} (I have done so). This will automatic populate with the citations you add in the following format: When you want to cite a source in the text, you add at an appropriate point <ref>source information</ref>. Note that the forward slash in the trailing tag tells the software that that is the end of the citation. Once saved, you will see only a footnote marker in the text, with the source text appearing in the references section.^[1]

references

^ Fuhghettaboutit. Copyright N/A (2007). See this in edit mode to see how it was done. Written on November 11, 2007.

The reason the external link for Thru The Bible Radio Network is not acceptable, at least as the only source, is because it is not independent of the subject; rather it is as far from independent as can be (would you rather trust and rely on an article on some company written by its president or by a newspaper?)

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

So where to find these sources? You, who are involved in the subject matter, are much more likely to know of publications that speak about Mr. McGee in detail. Nevertheless, here are a few sources I found using a google book search which you might use to bolster other sources you know of (these may not all be suitable for use).

--Fuhghettaboutit 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Fuhghettaboutit. Copyright N/A (2007). See this in edit mode to see how it was done. Written on November 11, 2007.

[1]