Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 20 March 2008

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Spa?

I saw that you have accused me of being a "spa" ? or a "sock puppet." I am unaware of what these names refer to, thus I can not respond in my own defense. In the future I would appreciate if you brought future allegations to me personally and allow me to respond, and not resort to libel gossip, on others talk pages. Redthoreau (talk TR 00:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just repeating word for word what an admin told me. No big deal. I wasn't sure what it meant at first either. Mattisse(Talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? And you said you agreed with him, that I was one ... thus how could you do so, if you didn't know what it meant ? Redthoreau (talk TR 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Minstrel show

I am far from being an expert on this subject, but I am curious as to why you have tagged minstrel show as relying on a single source when it patently doesn't - it refers to many sources. The article is far better referenced than 99.9% of others - what is the problem? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My complain was so much dependence on Toll, Robert C. (1974). Blacking Up: The Minstrel Show in Nineteenth-century America. New York: Oxford University Press. I have run across other articles that seem to have a skewed view of the subject, that seem to overly use Toll as a reference. I personally have not read the book myself so I do not know where his perspective comes from. Anyway, I am just one person with an opinion on the subject.

Thurman Ruth

By the way, I've also added some text to your Thurman Ruth article, taken from the one on The Larks which I started - hope that's OK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as adding to the article, as long as it does not hurt it's DYK chances, your additions are fine with me! Mattisse(Talk) 18:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the additions are not placed correctly in the article. Could you ask one of the DYK people about that, as they seem out of place? Regards, Mattisse(Talk) 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoa... hold on a minute! This is a biographical article, not an article on the secularisation of gospel music per se, and as such it should surely address all aspects of his life. So far as I can see, the DYK bit looks fine, and there's no reason why it shouldn't be addressed in the first para, but that's no reason whatsoever to delete the references to other parts of his life. Anyone reading the article as it stands after your changes would only get a partial view of the man. I have to say I'm disappointed with your approach - the article should only be considered for DYK, in my view, if it gives a balanced biographical picture. That's precisely what my edits aimed to do. So, I don't think I have any alternative but to reinstate my earlier changes, and hope that you see my point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article I just wrote and submitted to DYK. If you mess it up that way you did, with improper reference sources and a messed up format , it will never get DYK. Further your intent of the article is not the same as mine and you cannot change it with some consensus and discussing. Please discuss before you expropriate an article someone else has just started. Mattisse(Talk) 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. You know very well that this is not "your" article, and whether or not it meets DYK criteria is (or should be) irrelevant. As you wish it to stand, it is not a good biographical article. I didn't think I "messed it up", just gave a more rounded picture, but you're entitled to your view. Sorry, I've no wish to get into an argument with you given the high regard I have previously had for your contributions, but this seems pretty fundamental to me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. I do not "vandalise". Ever. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The only time that is ever happened to me before, (someone making over an article I started when it was one day old) was when vandals and sockpuppets were after me. I do not find well-meaning editors ever acting with such arrogance and lack of consense. You made so many errors that the article would never get through DYK. Besides, the purpose of DYK is to encourage a single editor to submit a new article. You are ruining the article. If you want to ruin it with bad sources and incorrect information, then can you please wait a few days until after the DKY? Or are you driven to ruin it now? I do not understand your rudness and dictatorial behavior. Mattisse(Talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously very upset, which was not my intention at all. You state that "This is the second time you have messed up an article I just started and submitted to DYK." - what?, when? - sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. You state that "This is a first warning for totally taking over another editor's contribution and without consensus did it the way you want." Quite the reverse, I am eager to find consensus, but you aggressively reverted what to my mind were wholly uncontentious changes which gave a better balance to what should be a biographical article. I have no appetite for continuing this discussion today and will take a day or two off - we'll see where we are when I return. I am not a vandal, I am not used to being called "rude", I do not "take over" articles, and I am motivated solely by the need to improve them when necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with retitling the article as you have done, nor with the emphasis of the text being placed on his work as a producer, but the fact remains that his other work as an organiser of, and singer with, other groups including The Larks - who were important in their own way in the secular music field - should be mentioned. Personally, I really don't care that much if you want to mention it later in the article rather than as a lead item, but to my mind a chronological approach is almost always preferable in a biographical article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was one day old. I wrote it for DYK - that exists so an editor like me can write a little article and get a DYK, before people like you mess it up. Why you can't wait to screw the article up until after the DYK, I do not understand. I have over 50 DYK's so I know what works for a DKY and a messed up format with a bad hook and references that do not follow WP:V and WP:RS is not the way to go. As I said, screw the article up as much as you want after. I don't care if it is a bad article or not later. Mattisse(Talk) 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I find the obsession with "getting DYKs" utterly bizarre. "Screw the article up as much as you want after. I don't care if it is a bad article or not later." - if that is the view of an experienced editor, then heaven help us all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is editors like you that made the DYK a pleasure as a well written article can be left alone there. What is your problem that you can not wait a few days until the DYK is over before you make a mess of it? In fact, maybe you did ruin the DYK if the DYK editors evaluated it while it was in the mess you put it in. Organization, emphasis, etc. is not for you to decide unilaterally on a one-day-old article that you have not edited at all, not consulted on at all, but merely grabbed it for yourself as if you were the boss. What is the matter with you? Mattisse(Talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving on (as I hope we now can) .... Two points : (1) does it need to say (producer) (promoter) after his name in the title - I thought that was only advisable where there is more than one individual with the same name, which doesn't apply here; and (2) do you have verification of the spelling of his name? I have seen various alternatives in different sources, none of which seem indisputable. Until it's resolved I've set up redirects from alternative spellings anyway. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I received the DYK, probably earlier than normally due to the attention you brought it—the DYK people felt sorry for me! As far as the spelling of Ruth's name goes, I just used the name that is used in the most reliable, credible sources I have, but certainly redirects are fine. I identified him as "promoter" because that was his primary career, (along with being a deejay and an MC) and his contribution to the history of American music was his promotion of black gospel into the mainstream. I had to comment out a footnote you put in. I could not figure out why it wasn't working as it works under External links. Anyway, that type of reference in the body of the article does not met the requirements of verifiable sources etc. but is O.K. under External links. Mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour and chemotaxis

Dear Mattisse, I have seen the results of your hard work on the chemotaxis related pages. I could agree with the changes you have done - removal of 'behaviour/behavior' from the keyword line, however, I know that in cell biology and ethology of unicellular organisms we also deal with this term 'behaviour' to describe to migration, activity of swimming etc. of the cells. E.g. 'Swimming behaviour' is a very significant term which describes chemotaxis of cells and we can distinguish the effect of different durgs etc. upon different behaviours of swimming (runs, creeping, turns, rests). If you read the article 'Behaviour' of Wiki, you will find, that there are also relflections to that possibility. If you have stronger evidences which support the removal please let me know, I am always open to accept changes, but only when they are supported with evidences. Thank you again for your help and checking the chemotaxis related pages. Best regards from Kohlasz (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I skimmed the article on behavior. I think it needs to be broken down (it is a mess and I can't even read it.) My problem was that every article that had the category Behavior in it, ended up under Psychology > Behavior. Psychology is a social science, and the kind of behavior studied there has nothing to do with the behavior of chemotaxis. In Psychology it shows up as Behavior > Taxes > Is there another way of arranging it? The average reader, I think, seeing Taxes under Behavior would be thinking "Income taxes". Look at Category:Behavior. (And this is after I have cleaned it up some.) The whole category is a mess. Could there not be Category:Behavior (psychology), Category:Cell taxes or something similar. People were sticking things in Behavior like Etiquette, plays with animals etc., eating problems. We need to break it down into more specific categories. What do you think? Each category is supposed to have a brief, concise description of what goes into it, like Category:Psychology. Maybe we could come up with something. Regards, Mattisse(Talk) 22:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. Thanks for the rapid answer. I understand your reasons concerning the meaning of Psychology/Behavior line of the question. You are writing about 'general reader' of the Wiki. OK there are such people, but Wiki from day to day turns to be the most significant reference source in different topics of science (like biology is), too. Therefore taxes are not only income taxes (thanks to the God :-) but the plural of taxis (chemotaxis, magentotaxis, phototaxis, galvanotaxis, thermotaxis etc.) I feel we should consider these problems from two sides: general and special users. In this respect behavior could be present under the taxes also. I know that I am a 'Chemotaxis man' but there are several more working on these and neighbor fields, therefore I suggest you the wide interpretation of the keywords.

Best regards from Kohlasz (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK submission

As long as it's not a dispute about neutrality or something, I guess you could ask one of the regular DYK admins to protect the page for you until it's been featured. It's a bit unfair for you to miss out on a DYK just because someone can't hold off editing for a few days. Gatoclass (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Could you give more specifics on the article? Ruhrfisch _><>° 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Add more detail? The general situation was that blacks had a dynamic R&B music scene going in theaters like the Apollo Theater. (And they were also increasingly drawing whites, even Marilyn Monroe went to the Apollo.) Although gospel groups were popular, because of their religious beliefs, they thought it would be blasphemy to perform in commercial venues and so had little white exposure. Thus they were not well known to the general public and lived a shabby life, making little or no money. Thurman Ruth (producer), although a gospel singer himself, was also one of those entrepreneurial guys who work as a deejay and hung around the Apollo. He saw the commercial potential of gospel as a main stream music like R&B. He was able to convince a gospel group to perform for the first time in a commercial venue, to the wrath of the religious community, and he taught them how to be professional performers, entertainers. It is a similar breakthrough to Ray Charles, somewhat later, who horrified religious blacks by using gospel chords for blatantly commercial music that did not even pretend to be religious. Mattisse(Talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He also arranged "gospel caravans" of gospel groups who toured the country like the R&B groups did. Gospel became extremely popular -- Sam Cooke etc. Mattisse(Talk) 22:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble with an editor reverting and messing up the article when it was a day or two old, and would not listen to reason about just waiting until the DYK was over. Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For info - I made an edit to the article yesterday (as I thought, uncontroversial if not perfectly referenced) with the intention of giving a more balanced picture. Mattisse took a different view on my edit. We disagreed - see debate above and elsewhere. I backed down. End of story. For what it's worth, I hope the article does get DYK status (he is an important figure) but I await an apology for some of the wholly unjustified and ill-tempered comments made towards me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote from a message to me on my talk page above regarding this situation:

As long as it's not a dispute about neutrality or something, I guess you could ask one of the regular DYK admins to protect the page for you until it's been featured. It's a bit unfair for you to miss out on a DYK just because someone can't hold off editing for a few days.

I will ask to have the article protected so you cannot edit it temporarily if you insist on this nonsense. Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I have no intention of editing the article, but please refrain from further personal attacks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops - just edited the article. Only one letter though, so please forgive me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A friendly note

Dear Mattisse, Please do not take me as pushing you. I am checking the article time to time and I see that you have stopped the editing since 25th February. I feel worried that may be it has become some load for you! I am trying to keep my hands off from it as long as you are conducting it. Let me know.Shoovrow (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse (nonlegal)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Excuse (nonlegal), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Excuse (nonlegal). — HelloAnnyong 14:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I just spun the article off from Excuse which pertained to legal issues only. I do not know who wrote the original of the spin off. Mattisse (Talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 8 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thurman Ruth (promoter), 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.

where do you find these articles?

Some of the articles you find to edit seem to be on subjects which claim to be psychological, and others that really are.:) I was wondering where you find them, as I enjoy editing them. Have they just been put in the psychology category, or are there others too? The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh the Chutzpah

You have the audacity to warn me of "insults". You labeled (by agreeing) me a "Sock Puppet" and "Spa" basically spreading the libel that I was a phony user of someone else. Now when I bring up the REALITY, that you told me you were "finished" with the article, you label that a personal attack? This would be funny, if it wasn't so disingenuous. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not welcome to comment on my talk page again. If you have anything to say about the article, say it on the article talk page. Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then in the same spirit, Please Stop Vandalizing my Talk Page. Do not post on my talk page again, as you have made the same request of me. Redthoreau (talk TR 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Templating your talk page because you are making personal attacks is not vandalizm. I am asking you again not to post on my talk page. Mattisse (Talk) 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not made any personal attacks against you! You believe that the rules only apply to others and not yourself, and also wish to have the last word on your talk page and expect me not to answer your accusations. Name me the specific insults I have lobbed against you, or refrain from the false accusation. I can document 2 insults you made against me, and all I have done is pose the question of whether I should believe your own words, when you declare to everyone you are "finished" with a particular article or not? That is not an INSULT. And if you would like me to stop commenting on your page, then stop casting accusations against me on it. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone has gotten the message by now that perhaps by trying to have the last word over and over, then we'll be stuck. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 07:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you are right. I have not responded except to put personal attack warnings on his page yesterday for the first time. I have ignored the personal attacks for some weeks now and it did drive me away from editing the article. However, I want to edit the article again, and I will template him or seek further help if he continues. I have asked him several times to only respond on the article talk page and to comment on content and not on editors. He has virtually "owned" the Che Guevara article since December 2007. Thanks! I will hope for the best! Mattisse (Talk) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Design of experiments

Why do you say this name is "wrong"? Certainly it is a widespread and standard name of the topic, ever since Ronald Fisher's famous book introduced the subject in 1935. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict)

It's not a big deal. All my books and the courses I took called it Experimental Design. I'm just in a bad mood from trying to untangle the Psychology category. I don't know of a way, right now, to get the relevant statistical and experimental design articles into psychology. It quickly gets out of hand. Sorry. It is not important what the article is called. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you go back farther than me (though that is hard to believe)! The only books I could dig up at the moment are:

• Quasi-Experimentation Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings (1979) by Thomas Cook and Donald Campbell

• Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (2nd Ed.) (1971) by B. J. Winer

• Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (1973) by Donald Compbell and Julian Stanley

• Experimental Principles and Design in Psychology (1970) Herbert Kimmel

I remember the name Fisher and thought I had a book by him, but my books are in chaos right now. Anyway, what's in a name? Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Neurobiological brain disorder

Yes, thanks to Cgingold for adding this notice. I nominated the category for deletion because while I think it is a useful concept, it is much too early to use it for categorisation. The article neurobiological brain disorder itself needs to be much more specific as to its epistemology. JFW | T@lk 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I'm glad you nomimated it! Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

An important note

Dear Mattisse, I have no doubt about your will to help me. Also its very clear that you are too busy. But I am worried about the complete primary reconstruction of my article by you that you assured me of. Will you please tell me your future plan about its further proceeding? You have to tackle a lot of projects for many. But I have to tackle this single project for the rest of the world. That keeps me sweating all the time with different apprehensions. Shoovrow (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I will within the week. Mattisse (Talk) 13:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks its assuring!Shoovrow (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Offender category addition

You recently added the dangerous offender article to the sex offender registration category. I posted on the article's talk page, questioning the edit, as it didn't seem to be that the article belonged in that category (since 'dangerous offender' is just a sentencing tool, and has no affect on any type of registration). Anyway, since it was your edit, I didn't want to revert it until you had an opportunity to tell me I'm mistaken :P Singularity42 (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is interesting since in some states "dangerousness", or rather the prediction of future dangerousness, is used to justify the indefinite civil commitment of sex offenders after EOS. That is the only way I have seen it used. (This continues even though there is no measure for future dangerousness.) The Supreme Court has upheld this only in cases when the offender was a sex offender, as far as I know. But I am not very good at categories. Maybe you know more about this. I would like to know your ideas. Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only really answer it based on Canadian law (which it the main part of the article - there's also one or two sentences on England & Wales, but I don't know enough about those areas to look up the sources). But just by way of example, in R. v. D.O.B., O.J. No. 771 (Ontario Superior Court), the accused was sentenced as a dangerous offender after a number of manslaughter convictions and no sexual assaults.

But anyway, I think my bigger concern was the 'registration' aspect of the category. I really wouldn't have a problem with dangerous offender being part of a more general sex offender category - it's probably true that most individuals sentenced as dangerous offenders are sex offenders (although a source may be needed for that). The problem is that being sentenced as a dangerous offender has nothing to do with the sex offender registry in Canada. The dangerous offender provision is for sentencing purposes - it causes a person to recieve an indefinite prison sentence. Being registered as a sex offender is a seperate aspect of the Canadian criminal justice system, and is not affected by (or affects) the dangerous offender designation. Does that make sense?

Singularity42 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why the Law articles are so confusing! Different countries do things different ways. Very few offenders besides sex offenders are formally classified as dangerous, really no offender is outside the prison classification system. Sex offenders are the only persons who have to register in the United States. They are monitored with ankle cuffs, only allowed to live in special zones, must report any changes, are visited constantly by parole officers, etc. However, a murderer can walk right out at EOS and owes nothing to the state. And all this sex offender stuff is growing in the U.S. There are increasing rules about where sex offenders can live and they have increased reporting duties. We have more and more rules because of all the high-profile sex offender cases. I get an automated telephone call from the Sheriff telling me any time a sex offender moves within three miles of my home! Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that can be a problem generally for the Law articles. But the dangerous offender article seems to be 99% focused on the Canadian law, with one sentence on the England & Wales provision. Considering that, at least in Canada, there's no direct connection between Canada's sex offender registry and Canada's dangerous offender designation (the indirect connection being that due to the nature of these type of offences, many dangerous offenders are also on the sex offender registry), should the category at least be changed to something a little more general than registration? Singularity42 (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in reading it I find it has nothing at all to do with the U.S. processes. Maybe because Canada is a commonwealth and arranges it's laws differently? I think we need totally different articles. There is no such designation as a "dangerous offender". I know from reading court cases that judges do not think there is a way to predict dangerous and they will not do it. The Supreme Court would overturn it anyway, except for sex offenders. Almost all well know American offenders are sex offenders. Check out Category:American rapists, Category:American serial killers (usually sexual), Category:American sex offenders. As for the Category:Murderers of children note that there is not even an American list. There is a list for Category:Canadian serial killers, Category:Canadians convicted of murder, Category:Canadian mass murderers, Category:Quebec murderers. Are these the "dangerous offenders? Probably not those covered by Category:Canadian criminals? Same category for American is Category:American criminals. Look at the difference! Mattisse (Talk) 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Canada's laws are different than the U.S.'s because it's a different country :P. Anyway, there is no specific list of dangerous offenders. According to the Canadian Government's website, as of July 2006 there were 351 people that are currently alive with a dangerous offender designation. Basically, in Canada, if a person meets certain criteria listed in the Criminal Code, the courts can designate them as a dangerous offender (and recieve an indefinite sentence) or a long-term offender (and recieve a definite sentence followed by a lengthy rehabilitation) - the difference is on the ability for the person to be rehabilitated. The Code specifically makes provisions for offences other then sexual ones (there are citations to the revelevant legislation in the article itself). So essentially, "dangerous offender" is just a term applied to a person who meets certain pre-set criteria. There's no evaluation of the abstract concept of 'danger', and the courts aren't being asked to predict the future, other then whether the person is able to be rehabilitated or not.

It's also important to realize that the designation cannot apply to first- or second-degree murder. So a list of Canadian serial killers wouldn't necessarily be a list of those designated as a dangerous offender. (This was why Robert Pickton, the recently convicted Canadian serial killer, was not designated a dangerous offender.) Anyway, perhaps it might be better for the article to come under the Sex Offender category rather then the registration one?Singularity42 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Read this Protecting Society from Sexually Dangerous Offenders: Law, Justice, and Therap Mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like an interesting book. But I think it's important to keep in mind the difference between calling someone a dangerous offender or sexually dangerous offender because of public notions of what 'dangerousness' means, and someone being designated as a "Dangerous Offender" under s. 753 of the Criminal Code of Canada Singularity42 (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a designation as "dangerousness" would be made by the court. But because there is no reliable scientific evidence that future dangerous can be predicted, even by expert witnesses -- in fact quite the opposite -- courts cannot designate a person as dangerous as it would violate Due process and be overturned by the Supreme Court. The is the U.S. Constitution. That is why we have no such designation. Mattisse (Talk) 19:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely true, and the same right is protected under the Canadian Constitution. I think the difficulty here is to forget that the title "Dangerous Offender" is just a title for a type of sentence. Imagine two titles: "Special Sentence A" and "Special Sentence B". If a person has been convicted of certain offences, meets certain criteria in relation to those offences, and there is an expert opinion regarding their ability to be rehabilitiated, and a court decides that the person is a serious threat to the community and it is not reasonable to believe they can be rehabilitated, then Canadian criminal law states that they recieve "Special Sentence A", and are given an indefinite prison term, reviewable after seven years, and then every three. If they are a serious threat, but there is a chance of rehabilitation, then they recieve "Special Sentence B", and are given a definite prison term, with a long-term rehabiliation program. If they are not a serious threat and/or don't meet the criteria, then the normal sentencing provisions apply. The court's not deciding future dangerousness. Now just change the wording of "Special Sentence A" to "Dangerous Offender" and "Special Sentence B" to "Long-Term Offender". In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada found that these provisions of the Criminal Code don't violate the Canadian Constitution (specifically the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). The Court has stated: "The individual, on a finding of guilty, is being sentenced for the 'serious personal injury offence' for which he was convicted, albeit in a different way than would ordinarily be done. He is not being punished for what he might do. The punishment flows from the actual commission of a specific offence." Singularity42 (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we've gotten a bit off-point. Regardless of the the practicality of the sentencing provisions, it's constitutionality, and how it compares to U.S. law (which are all very interesting topics), I think we would probably both agree that it's an article having to do with sentencing, not offender registration. Therefore, would you object if I changed the category to Sex Offenders instead of Sex Offender Registration? Singularity42 (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(outdent) The problem is that the Supreme Court has made it quite clear that "dangerousness" is not a sufficient reason for civil commitment for the reasons outlined above. If a person is considered "dangerous" by some, but there is no other reason for his commitment (like an active mental disorder predisposing him to violence, a record of recent violent behavior while incarcerated - stabbing people and the like) then "dangerous" alone is not sufficient. (We are excluding here a person being held for up to 72 hours in the community for psychiatric evaluation as a danger to self or others.) However, if experts in court are willing to state that a sex offender at EOS, is likely to continue to be dangerous (and there is consensus in the field that sex offenders cannot be cured - even John Money gave in after all these years), then the combination allows some jurisdictions to civilly commit such a person. Not all states have accepted this stance, but the number is growing. It is still rather "iffy" because the judgment is based on prediction and mental health experts concede they are generally not able to do that. So far, cases going to the Supreme Court have supported it, but we will have a new court soon and it may be overturned and no longer allowed. Mattisse (Talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we need separate articles. Only sex offenders have to register in the US. No one else does, so "Offender registration" is misleading. The rest of the article has to do with Canadian law and is not relevant to American law anyway. In fact, so many of the law articles are such a mess because they try to cover too much. I don't know how to deal with this but maybe we can think of a way. I can't read those law article; that is why I usually write my own. Can you think of any ideas? Mattisse (Talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Please do not add controversial and inappropriate categories to biographies of living people. This violates Wikipedias policies on biographies and doesn't help the project. Specifically the article spells out that the person was convicted of being in possession of child pornography, we have to stick to the facts only, especially with controversial material. Likewise, this "blurring" of a category diminishes the real harm of child sexual offenders and I imagine that would run counter to those who want to ensure wikipedia accurately presents such content. If the subject becomes eligible for one of the categories then I fully support their inclusion. For example, I have removed some mainstream films from the Anti-Catholic category as they really didn't fit that definition and inclusion there diminished the real impact from those subjects who were correctly a part of that category. Once we have sourced documentation that supports inclusion then the category is warranted. Benjiboi 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not add anything to the articles themselves. In fact, I questioned their suitability myself. I tried to put them in categories based on what was in the articles already. Sorry if I offended you. I just could not believe the mess it was all in. I probably got carried away, as this is my profession and I was startled to see how inaccurate it all was. I did have to correct some articles on U.S. law regarding the commitment of sex offenders, as what was written was quite off-base. I wrote U.S. Supreme Court decision articles to back myself up. Again, I apologize if I startled you. I did attempt to have a dialog with someone working on categories and sex offenders, but he refused to consider anything but Canadian law. Then he put a category up for deletion that we had been discussing without telling me! Selfishly, since I use Misplaced Pages to keep track of case law for myself, I want things to be accurate for me! Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't offended but, it seems, we both want a better encyclopedia. Sometimes categories themselves are a bit messy. If the defining text of what the category is for or even the title is wrong consider fixing it and discussing improvements on the talk page. If someone is semantically caught up on variations from country to country then maybe clarify, In the United States blah, in Canada it's actually blah-de-blah, see ____ for more information. We should present multiple viewpoints accurately. Benjiboi 02:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the categories are a part of the article and the talk page is also covered under WP:BLP. Benjiboi 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Very very few of the articles, if any, I categorized today were BLP. I am always aware and conservative about BLP. That is one of the reasons why I was so surprised by what I saw going on in Category:Sex crimes. I work on categories a lot. Categories can be improved, usually dramatically. I just head for the category of "Bad categories", then Very large categories at the the Misplaced Pages portal. Only the hopeless categories are there, those that have been a problem for a long time. That is where Category:Sex crimes is. I guess the Sex Offender category is a bit touchy as I have never had anyone object before to my categorizing. Sorry! Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 02:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries! Benjiboi 04:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow!

Mattisse, I am really glad to see you working with both the concept of death and adjustment and death and adjustment hypotheses. I fact I was thinking about requesting you to start editing the hypotheses article too as you have the book, but was feeling ashamed that you have already had a busy time with my works and how can I ask more. Now that you have touched the hypotheses article too, I am copy pasting the review report of the hypotheses book at the very first class biomedical social journal DEATH STUDIES of Taylor and Francis Inc. Once you get it, as it is a big report, you can remove it from your talk page to somewhere you like. it is as as follows - Shoovrow (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing the Phenomenon of Death – A Scientific Effort from the Islamic World

A review of Quest for a new death: Death and Adjustment Hypotheses, by Mohammad Samir Hossain, Ph.D. Charleston SC: BookSurge Publishing, 2007 pp. 198 (ISBN 1-4196-8454-8). $12.99. Reviewed by Dr. Md. Zakaria Siddique.

Mohammad Samir Hossain, a physician and teacher of psychiatry at Medical College for Women and Hospital at Dhaka, Bangladesh, is the author of about 50 mental health articles in different journals and magazines. After his medical graduation Dr. Samir has studied abnormal psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy from institutions including Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Bircham International University, and other institutions of higher learning (Dictionary of International Biography, 33rd Edition, 2006). His area of specialization is thanatology, with a focus on attitudes toward death. Md. Zakaria Siddique, a psychiatrist in Bangladesh, is the Head of the Department of Psychiatry, Medical College for Women and Hospital at Dhaka. He is also the Executive Editor of the psychiatric magazine Monojagot (web address: http://www.monojagot.ws), the first mental health magazine in the Bangla language. He has published numerous articles on mental health in different journals and magazines. He has so far written four books on mental health issues.

Professor Hossain’s book, Quest for a new death, is unique in its methodological focus on the phenomenon of death and our human reactions to it (Concept of death and adjustment, 2007). I believe that the diversified education of the author in biological and behavioral sciences helped most in developing his multidimensional hypotheses on the natural but neglected phenomenon of death, which is ultimately the heart of the book. Because research on death attitudes has been submerged in this sense, especially in the Islamic world, progressing with such research is like exploring lost cities in dark sea. Reviewing this work poses similar challenges, as it raises many new, but frequently obscured issues for scientific thanatology as well as offering glimpses into death attitudes in a cross cultural perspective. While dealing with death as a natural phenomenon for every individual and society, this work abandons a focus on the point of death or dying, and instead investigates the more exclusive concepts pertaining to death as an ongoing state. The ‘death’ it speaks of is truly new for science. Thus, the book’s subtitle is apt—Death and adjustment hypotheses—as it draws on a foundation of the author’s empirical research on Islamic death attitudes as an example of nonscientific conceptions of death (10% of the book) to build a theoretical framework (90% of the contents). The empirical parts are informed by conventional statistical analyses on death attitudes, whereas the conceptual parts mainly follow epistemological methodology, a less conventional way of conducting research in behavioral science. I think a small section describing its methodology could have clarified it for readers, especially for those who are not much acquainted with epistemological methods. The book is presented in four main sections. Hossain begins, appropriately, by discussing different relevant topics on death. He then clarifies the concept of death, especially in the sense it will concern him in the pages that follow. With these matters of definition accomplished, he highlights the relationship of death as a universal phenomenon to people’s mental health, a topic that he explores in some depth as it applies to the problem that death represents for otherwise healthy adults who have to adjust to this reality. Helpfully for his readers, Hossain discusses several of the specific scales he developed for his research, which are not very available otherwise, such as the Death Rejection Score Scale (DRS), Neurotic Symptom Score Scale (NSS), and others, and puts these to use in the context of a formal research project whose results he summarizes. In summary, this section serves to specify some unfamiliar concepts and methods used in this book. Questions can still be raised, however, about the scientific status of the measuring tools described in this section, although they have been used successfully in research published in the peer reviewed literature (e.g., Hossain, Siddique and Chowdhury, 2007). The second section of the book concentrates on the central argument of the death and adjustment hypothesis. In comparison with the other sections it is a vast one, describing the hypothesis in nineteen parts. The overarching focus of this section is directed towards the proposition that the way we understand the relationship of death and existence is incorrect and that this misunderstanding is harmful for us as human beings. The topics discussed in different parts are 1) the experience of death in vivo and in vitro, 2) the process of identifying a truth, 3) our current stance toward death, 4) people with exceptional attitudes towards death, 5) major non-scientific concepts of death, 6) the way death challenges our wellbeing, 7) traditional scientific attitudes towards death and their validity, 8) basic criteria of life, 9) the possibility of death’s ending one’s existence, 10) logical considerations of the criteria of death, 11) the necessity of evaluating these criteria, 12) death anxiety and adjustment, 13) the history of attitudes towards death and stages of adjustment with death, 14) the popular adoption of stage theories of adaptation to death in mass culture, 15) consequences of maladjustment with death, 16) the ambiguity of death and our dissociation from it, 17) the vicious cycle of ambiguity and dissociation, 18) comparison of the practical impacts of different concepts of death, and 19) declaration of the hypothesis. Rather boldly, Hossain’s hypothesis ultimately demands the installment of the concept, universally, that our existence does not end with death. Also, it indicates that we are now dissociated from the phenomenon of death due to our maladjustment in this respect. Throughout the discussion of the hypothesis, the author adduces logical and theoretical support for this claim from several sources. Although this convergence of evidence is persuasive, I felt that if I had read the declaration before the 19 parts in detail, it would have been easier for me to go through the book, especially the second section. Substantively, this sweeping section of Hossain’s argument draws upon the important work of Kubler-Ross (1997) in discussing stages of dying, and perhaps more significantly and pervasively, the cultural perspective on death attitudes developed most eloquently by Aries (1974), which informs this book as a whole. Finally, in the last part of this section, Hossain shares some personal feelings concerning the hypothesis and its impact on his life, as well as some discussion of the concept of death and its relevance for Muslim terrorism, which adds to the scientific and social value of the work. But these last commentaries are actually footnotes to the research, as the author also candidly admits. Section three of the book is on our attitude towards death. It begins by discussing the problematic aspects of the attitude, mainly the defensive ones that exclude death from conscious thought. Hossain then undertakes a detailed analysis of this attitude from a psychological point of view, explaining why this prevalent attitude is problematic, and how gaps exist between our death-related activities and formal beliefs. Interestingly, this analysis has an historical dimension, revealing the progressive deterioration in the attitude across the course of civilization, considering the etiology of the changes and their related psychological processes. Like section one, this section provides also another base for further development of Hossain’s hypotheses. But this section is easier going due to the interesting historical discussions and analyses of history through the lens of psychoanalytic theories. In brief, it is much closer to the science we know. In my view, the fourth section is the most important of the book, as it represents a synopsis of all the previous parts. Careful reading also reveals that it is a total reconstructive approach for the whole work. The concise primary version of the hypothesis has been installed in this section and a second part has also been developed as a new extension of this basic thesis. This second part ultimately emphasizes the importance of morality for a genuine accommodation of death in human life as implied by the first hypothesis. In this section the author tests his hypotheses conceptually using the theories of Hamlyn (1970) and proposes a new psychiatric diagnosis, termed Death Adjustment Disorder (DAD). In my opinion, this is a bold proposal, as the number of DAD patients will be numerous if such a proposal were taken seriously, as we all tend to experience some kind of difficulty in integrating the reality of death. Thus, the various strands of argument in this section are very important from a practical point of view. They also clarify the primary purpose of the book and thus the whole research. Following section four of the book, Hossain provides an “inference” or summary statement to present more succinctly the scientific concern of the work, especially about our current condition and the unknown future. This section clearly elaborates all the aspects of his multifaceted argument in brief. But unlike the summary chapters of many other books, it requires a thorough reading of the whole preceding volume, especially to accept Hossain’s statements as scientific ones, although I as a reader found them acceptable morally and socially. Of all the parts of the book, the portion entitled “A Final Statement” is the liveliest, conveying the core of the author’s argument with passion as well as a sense of truth. It also acknowledges that the book goes against the traditions of many in contemporary civilization. Those who disagree with Hossain’s previous arguments might even feel negatively after reading this part. But still I applaud the author’s boldness of expression, which in my view is the beauty of the book. How successful is Hossain in achieving his stated purposes? Ultimately, I believe that the major steps he proposes are impossible to complete in a single small book, however much it is anchored in provisional data, theory, and passionate belief. In particular, the book’s core hypothesis that death is not the end of human life, and that integration of this knowledge would transform human beings and cultures would require many further steps and analyses to be implemented practically. I agree with all the concepts and declarations theoretically, but their practical acceptance deserves much more consideration, and this would be the job of a dozen book-length treatises, or a hundred journal articles. Thus, as a reviewer of this project, I concluded that the book really represents as an important guide for future scientific studies. I believe that Hossain can play a role as a pioneer in this work, providing a starting point for his own subsequent inquiry and that of like-minded others. At the outset of this review, I commented about the depth of Hossain’s project and hinted at the novelty of his style of presentation and pursuit of his central hypothesis. But in the end I found the historical and psychological development of the book’s thesis to be intriguing and persuasive, and its implications practical and useful. So my frank hope would be that further works in this line continue to flourish for the benefits they could carry at both a scientific and social level. As a book for ordinary readers, this work is unlikely to be a bestseller, as it lacks the ease of understanding and pleasurable focus required for popular success. But it surely is a pacemaker in one important movement in science, and in this sense could have a different sort of impact on civilization, given the centrality of death for human life.

References Aries P. (1974). Western Attitudes toward Death: From the Middle Ages to the Present. New York: Vintage. Concept of death and adjustment. (2007, November 16). In Misplaced Pages, The 💕. Retrieved 16:59, December 15, 2007, from http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Concept_of_death_and_adjustment&oldid=171945943 Dictionary of International Biography (33rd ed.). (2006). Cambridge, UK: International Biographical Centre (Melrose Press Ltd). Hamlyn, D.W. (1970). The theory of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor. Hossain, M.S., Siddique, M.Z. and Chowdhury, T.R. (2007). Impacts and adjustments of the phenomenon "Death,” in Bangladeshi Muslims with Different Extents of Religiosity. Current Research in Social Psychology, 12, 179 – 185. Kubler-Ross E. (1997). On death and dying. New York: Touchstone Press.

Shoovrow (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive 16)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article (User talk:Mattisse/Archive 16), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of (User talk:Mattisse/Archive 16). Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 15:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re Speedy deletion

Your use of parentheses put the page in the article namespace. It needs to be in the User talk namespace. Thanks, Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 16:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That particular archive page has no parentheses in it. (At least, I cannot see them.) Now some other empty archive pages do, but they have never been tagged. Please point out the parentheses to me on the page you tagged, as I must be blind. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 16:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I prodded (User talk:Mattisse/Archive 16). That's (User talk:Mattisse/Archive 16). --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 16:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bracket#Parentheses ( ). Those parentheses. --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Do what you want. Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Request ;o)

I realize we had a "trist" but am glad to see us working well together at present. It's my hope the harmonious partnership will continue. I do have a request - which you can feel free to deny if you desire. I was wondering if you could create an additional blank spin off list entitled "Additional materials on Che Guevara" for me, so that I can place the materials formerly listed in the article there? Thanks.Redthoreau (talk TR 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the list there so you can fill it in and put in the categories at the bottom. You might want to read Misplaced Pages:Lists and Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists). There is supposed to be inclusion criteria at the top, whether it is incomplete or not, etc. Regarding the artcle, I want to reduce it to true WP:Summary style. I know some of the references are bad. For example, The Militant is not a good source.

Did you read the last comment on Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Che Guevara? I intent to follow his recommendations. He know what he is talking about. We are lucky that someone even bothered to comment at this point. Also, I would like to remove the cnotes, although I know User:Polaris999 will not like that. Maybe there is another way of writing an article on Che where they can be used. But I would like to see this article remain a Feature Article and it will not with those notes. Everyone (the Feature Article editors) have run out of patience with this article. Mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of the changes you have made thus far. and have a few requests. Can you change the name of the list article of CG's works to "Books by Che Guevara" - I feel that would be more precise and accurate. On that article itself I can then specify that these are (English translations only). Also I have restored the external links for the time being until some more people give their input. I am not against moving them to a list (Especially the archival footage to it's own seperate list) but I do think that the other media links are worthy of staying (but am open to your reasoning why they would not be). In addition I put the wording in the first few sentences back to the earlier wording as the changes I felt were poorly constructed. Overall however I appreciate your efforts thus far and wish to remain collaborative on the changes. Redthoreau (talk TR 12:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, what is with the aggressive response? I am confused. Whan I change something you refer to it as "reverting" you, but when you change something I previously wrote it is seen as legitimate. I mentioned on the talk page my changes and am open for discussion on them. Please point out to me what you believe is POV as I am open to changing it. It is not a 3 RR violation to continue to improve the article as we both have been doing. My piece was written last night and this morning before your recent edits and thus were not an attempt to alter your recent edits. Let's please discuss this on the CG Talk Page. ;o) Redthoreau (talk TR 14:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed than no one was working on the article. You have not been working on improving it. You made one edit on March 7 and one on March 6 with none since then. A respected editor left suggestions on the article FAR suggestion page. Since no one appeared to be addressing those issues I decided to work on the article on March 18. Then, without warning, you started to revert my edits without any discussion. Further, you are adding POV and over linking. You are not addressing the fundamental issues of the article that need work. Again I recommend you read 3RR rules. Any edit you make if another editors work, is a revert. Mattisse (Talk) 14:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I had stopped editing it because I thought that in its current state it was going to be judged for FA status. I believed that everyone was sort of letting it remain as is. As I noticed that someone else was interested in continuing improvements, I then rejoined back in, under the hopes of working with you. A few issues: how are 2 links substantially more than 1 in the lead ? Most leads have 5+ from what I have seen. Also wouldn't any edit you do also be a revert, as you are altering changes I have personally made many times. The 3 RR rules refers to just hitting UNDO on your work and erasing it all. That is not what I have done. I am continuing to better the wording just as you are. You have removed countless sentences that were at one time added by another editor ... however this is not reverting ? But when I change a few sentences for wording - all of the sudden I have committed a cardinal sin ? I don't get it. Also what is POV in the lead ? I am open to correcting it, but you have given me 0 specifics.Redthoreau (talk TR 14:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Polaris999 and I were unwilling to edit the page as long as the quality of the editing was continuing in the same vein as it was when we both dropped out. After we dropped out the article continued to go downhill. Yesterday I noticed that no one had made more that a few edits since March 5. When no one is editing the article and there are no comments on the FAR comment page, that means the article will fail. Since the article was obviously going to fail, and since you have not contributed anything geared to prevent its failing, I decided to heed User:Marskell suggestions and fix his complaints. (As noted elsewhere you have not been editing, except for two or three, since March 5 anyway. I had no idea you would suddenly step in and revert me, nor that you would start working on the article when I was -- not wise as it causes edit conflicts and loss of material unless coordinated, besides being rude and risking breaking the 3RR. We are lucky enough that anyone is bothering to review the article at this point. Everyone is sick of it. To continue to screw it up now will be fatal. We may not be able to fix it anyway, but if we edit constructively, at least we can try. If you want to edit, please focus on the problems as delineated by FAR responses. Mattisse (Talk) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking two words in a row is to be avoided if possible. A "sea of blue" is to be avoided. Common English words such as "author" should not be linked. Mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the specific suggestions and believe I corrected the author issue by linking to the list of his books. As for the two words in a row, that is common throughout the article, which specific links (for example) do you believe should not be linked in sequence? Redthoreau (talk TR 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Name changes can be made easily at any time.Likewise, the External links issue can be addressed latter. If the FA people stop feeling the article is hopeless, they will start making specific suggesting. Remember the task as set before us now. (Read Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria). User:Marskell is an extremely well respected editor. This is what he suggests and therefore what we must do:

Suggested FA criteria concerns are POV (1d), focus (4), referencing (1c), and formatting (2). Marskell (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• (1d) (POV) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.

• (1c) (referencing) Consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

• (2) (formatting) It follows the style guidelines, including:

• (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;

• (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);

• (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

• (4) (focus) It follows the style guidelines, including:

• (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
• (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)

1. Smith 2007, p. 1.
2. Smith 2007, p. 1.
3. Smith 2007, p. 1.

I notice some POV has crept in overnight. Please go in the direction of removing POV. Also, do nothing that will make the article longer. Remove rather than add. Also, much of the article does not make sense. I am tempted to retrieve an earlier version for some sections. Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not want an edit-war with you. Why won't you bring up your concerns in the lead to me so I can address your concerns and fix them, or give me a chance to explain my rationale for their inclusion. Actually you editing the lead would be the 3rd revert by you as well ... as it would be if I edited it, so that is an irrelevant point. Hell we have each edited wiring by each other countless times and that is not my concern. I want to be collaborative with you on this, but you are making things difficult with an overly aggressive tone and threats which are unnecessary. Misplaced Pages belongs to all of us, let's figure out a way to ensure everyone is able to use it how it was intended. Redthoreau (talk TR 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)

I have brought them up repeatedly.

The lead must mirror the article closely. Nothing can be mentioned in the lead that is not gone into detail in the article. The proportion of words about a subject in the lead must reflect the proportion given than subject in the article. OVERLINKING IS DISCOURAGED.

You have been told many times to read:

• WP:LEAD
• WP:Summary style

Plus, please read what I wrote in my reply to you in the above section on this talk page.

Additionallly:

1. The whole article must be neutral - meaning avoiding words like "martyr" "Christ-like", "revered worldwide", etc. NEUTRAL.
2. The lead must be a summary of the article. The paragraphs in the lead mirroring the article material only, nothing else.
3. Over linking is discouraged. Greatly discourage.
4. The article needs to be decreased not added to
5. The article needs to explain what Che actually did, what his role in the Cuban revolution actually was
6. The footnotes are a mess and incorrectly formatted.
7. Much of the articles is not referenced.

I copied the reviewer's comments in the Reply above. Please read them. I am copying this to the article talk page. Mattisse (Talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Maybe you will help

User:Redthoreau has virtually taken over the Che Guevara article. He templated me with a personal attack because I have said several times that I would not edit the article anymore and gave him some 3RR warnings. I have tried to report him to 3RR (after putting up with this for a long time -- all the other editors have been driven away. Thanks if you can help! Sincerely, Mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are accusing each other but still working in good faith. My suggestion is that you both smile (as you are edit warring about something a bit lame to me) or get a day or 2 as a break from the article or simply forget about accusations and discuss, because sincerely this is not something complicated. I trust you can do that. If that fails, let me know again. I also see Blnguyen helping out there. Please concentrate on collaboration and suggest you discuss your edits before hitting the 'save' button. -- FayssalF - 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

correction ... I templated you after you falsely templated me. You are the one that drove everyone away, not me. You are the one that continues to hypocritically harass my talk page and then when I respond with the exact same behavior you freak out and attempt to run to moderators for cover. You continually tell me to stop contacting you, and yet contact me and ask others to also do so. I have continually requested you to work collaboratively and yet you refuse every time ... telling me to "grow up" and refusing to be specific with your suggestions remarking that I am a "grown up" whose hand you will not hold. Although yes to cover yourself you did post some specifics on your 4th "I am leaving for good" declaration today. You are disrespectful, and impossible to deal with politely, even though I always do. The only reason I am responding here is because you always run to others and misrepresent the situation in an attempt to create a fictitious account of what happens. Your misrepresentation or reality is truly astounding and leads me to question your overall honesty. Please stop referencing me and I will finally be able to stop spending time defending myself against your made up accusations. Redthoreau (talk TR 02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Had to undo your 3RR report on User:Redthoreau

Hi Mattisse. I'm sorry your 3RR report didn't seem to be formatted correctly. You over-wrote some of the example text that was intended as a guide for submitting reports, and I thought I'd better undo it from the WP:AN/3RR noticeboard before any new reports came in. As an admin I was thinking of responding to your report, but I actually couldn't see a violation of the 3RR rule. I saw that Red reverted your work one time, and then he made further edits that could have been removing some of your stuff, but they didn't seem to me to count as reverts per the rule. If you can re-do the complaint in the correct form, and if you can find four actual reverts in one day, I encourage you to re-submit. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Matisse. Looking over the edit history, especially the edit summaries, I get the impression that Redthoreau is doing a lot of edits (and that you also are doing a lot of edits) but that generally they don't seem to be reverts, but just edits. Redthoreau seems to be indicating a collaborative attitude with edit summaries such as "Restoring former introductory wording - open to debate on talk page, but changed wording was poorly compiled in my opinion. ]" and "unlinking 'author' per Matisse suggestion". It's hard for me to tell whether there were 4 reverts in 24 hours because there are so many edits, and I can't easily tell which ones are reverts.

Really, the important thing is not how many reverts there were, but whether editors are getting along in a collaborative spirit, working together, discussing differences of opinion politely on the talk page, etc. I suggest trying very hard to make your own behaviour as polite and collaborative as possible, expressing your points clearly but without things like bold type which make it look as if you're angry, and if you do that I think it's very likely that Redthoreau will also be polite and collaborative. You may not get the article to be exactly the way you want it; it has to be a WP:CONSENSUS and sometimes that means compromise. But I think the two of you can get along. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Asking again nicely

Please stop harassing me, and now going to each article I have worked on and leaving numerous unwarranted tags. You have no desire to improve these articles and are only trying to do things you believe will annoy me. Please just return to whatever wiki edits you were doing before a few weeks ago and let’s go our separate ways. It is clear you are not interested in collaboration, which is fine and your choice, but this back and forth and attempts to now find every article I have contributed to and try and shadow me to cause problems with them does not represent the spirit of wikipedia. I don't want this to further devolve any further and would appreciate it if you would honor you numerous claims to be "finished" with the article we are mutually working on, so that we can both be free of the inevitable hassle which I know will ensue if this continues. As we both become agitated it is very easy for the both of us to find numerous ways to "make the other ones" wikipedia experience more difficult and less enjoyable, and I would like to avoid continuing down that path. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)