Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 8 April 2008

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

Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary

Sorry Mattisse, I didn't realise anyone else was editing the page. This is my first day using AWB, I missed that particular checkbox, and as a consequence of that I screwed up the edit. I'm sorry that you lost work. I've fixed the settings now and that problem won't happen again. Rissa (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dorothy Goetz

I think it is very discouraging when someone sticks a "cleanup" tag on an article four minutes after it's creation, as you did on mine. In fact, it is so discouraging that I am not going to finish the article. Perhaps someone else will clean it up. Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup tags are not meant to be an insult to anyone; it is merely a notice that there is work still to be done. As an evidently long-time Misplaced Pages editor, you should know better. I had no intention of hurting your feelings, and frankly I'm insulted by your childish response, which reads very much as a differently worded version of "I'm taking my ball and going home."

I had no way of knowing whether you had completed your contribution to the article or intended to continue working on it, therefore, I tagged it so that others interested in article cleanup could more easily find it. You likely already know this, but if you're in the middle of working on an article, you can tag it {{underconstruction}} or {{inuse}} to indicate your intention to continue editing it.

Please take a step back and re-assess the situation, and please don't take such an edit so personally. I believe that you are vastly over-reacting by taking a simple cleanup tag as reason not to finish an article you obviously care about. Never did I intend to discourage you, and I apologize that my actions were taken as such. --HamatoKameko (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates on Image pages

I've noticed that at least three times, you have added the text of Template:Di-disputed fair use rationale to image pages. You should know, if you haven't figured it out already, that the way you are doing this is not really the correct way to do it, and it causes a small problem. When you make edits like this one, you appear to be copying the code directly from the template's source. This causes the image page to be added to Category:Image copyright tags (a category for the template, not the image). This can be prevented by transclusion (using the code {{template}}) or substitution (using the code {{subst:template}}). For the effect you were looking for, you should have used substitution with these templates—it adds the code of the templates, without anything in <noinclude> tags, which is the difference between your method and substitution, and which is the source of the problem. I've fixed this problem at Image:MD2.jpg and Image:MD4.jpg. Actually, if I were you, I would use transclusion, because that method looks neater in the code and is easier to modify or remove. (Also, just so you know: I fixed a link on this talk page which was putting it into Category:Child abuse—it was missing a colon.) — Insanity Incarnate 22:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am truly sorry. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to to that and I could not. None of the ones I stashed away worked. Finally, I think I copied someone else's template message. I will add your suggestions to my template page. The difference between the two methods I do not really understand. I guess you are saying I transcluded and I should have substituted? I looked through all the templates and ended up using the only one I could get to work - and even there I copied. I don't know what transclusion is, although I have read the wikipedia pages on all that. Sorry about the missing colon. I will try to understand more, but it may be hopeless in my case. This is why I am so helpless at wikipedia, and after two years still have not successfully formated a 3RR complaint even once! Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an example will help. Say that there's a template, Template:ExampleTemplate, that contains the text "Hello world." To transclude this template (most common, outside of the User Talk namespace), add "{{ExampleTemplate}}" to the code on the page ("ExamplePage") where you want the text to appear. After you save this page, the code for ExamplePage will be stored as "...{{ExampleTemplate}}...". Every time that page is loaded, the code from Template:ExampleTemplate will also be loaded and inserted into ExamplePage. If Template:ExampleTemplate is edited, the text on ExamplePage will be changed because it's loading the new code from the template.

If you were to substitute the template, you would type "{{subst:ExampleTemplate}}". The page's code would be stored in the server as "...Hello world...", and any changes to Template:ExampleTemplate would not affect the displayed text of ExamplePage, because loading ExamplePage would not require loading Template:ExampleTemplate (it's not linked in the code of ExamplePage).

You're not transcluding or substituting. You were inserting the exact source code of the template into the page, giving an effect that was similar to substituting, but not exactly the same. The biggest difference is in the <noinclude> tags in the template, the contents of which, when transclusion or substitution are used, do not appear on the page where the template link is placed. When you copied everything, including these tags, Misplaced Pages ignored them, because they only work when the template is inserted automatically, with the curly bracket notation ({{...}}).

I very much hope that I've helped you with this. (Re-)read Misplaced Pages:Template namespace, and experiment in your sandbox with some actual templates. Ask me if you're still confused or have any other questions. — Insanity Incarnate 04:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article that may assist you

Thought this article may assist you in the CG in Cuban Revolution article. It is from the edition in which CG was on the cover ... and I believe provides some valuable insight to the scene/situation at the time. "Castro's Brain", Aug 8, 1960, Time Magazine Redthoreau (talk TR 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Important

Mattisse, my dear friend, after 10 hours from now my father in law will be transferred to the super-specialized hospital and I may not be able to be on internet for a while. You work a lot and also I count on you and your patience. I marked that, in the discussion portion of your talk page I added a section with the heading "Wow" in which a very important document in support of my works has been copied. I understand that very shortly it will be archived if only one or two messages are added to your talk page. As I will be busy keeping my father in law safe and away from internet, it will be best if you keep the review report in the "Wow" portion which will be most helpful for the "Death and adjustment hypotheses" article (the second article you approached), but it might be useful for the first article (on which you are working mostly) "Concept of death and adjustment" too. Forgive me for pressing you but it is very understandable that a busy editor like you may be lost in other works very easily. I will be very grateful if the two articles mentioned above are edited by you. The review report in the Wow portion of your talk page is very valuable for any part of the world, cos, Death Studies, the Journal in which the report has been waiting in press is most likely the highest journal on death related research. I believe I will see some progress when I'll be back. Forgive me for every annoying situation I'm creating for you.Shoovrow (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not annoying me at all. Regarding the articls, I am not clear what you mean. Anything that gets archived will be safe there. Could you send me the specific links you are concerned about? You could put them in sandboxes on your user page. You can put anything there without criticism or worry that they will get deleted. Also, I am becoming confused between all the articles and where they are and what the priorities are for what you want done. I am so sorry to hear your news and understand the stress your must be under. Mattisse (Talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets make it simple. I am connected with two articles at wiki. 1) Concept of Death and Adjustment and 2) Death and adjustment Hypotheses. Both of us trying to bring the articles to a shape more and more suitable for wiki. I am taking your help for editing those articles. You are mainly editing the no-1 article above, and also sometimes touching the no-2 too. In your talk page there is a discussion with the heading 'Wow'. Read it fully. You will get some comments from the famous journal Death studies and the comments are on my work. The comments will be printed after the fall of 2008, it is in waiting list to be published (printed). The journal authority has sent the final electronic copy to me so that I can use it for wiki and other place for references. Just type Death studies in the search box in any browser and you will be able to read about the journal. Even if you write to the editor he will be able to recall about my work and their report. I am just letting you know so that you can edit the articles with more confidence. Also as you have my very first book, it will help you edit the second article mentioned above. Is it clear now, my friend?Shoovrow (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

O.K. To read the Wow section, I will have to format it - I can't read a big block of text like that. But that is no problem. I can do that in a sandbox or even on the talk page edition. I'll get going on it. (What takes me so long is that I can only do it when I have lard blocks of time to concentration on it -- usually I have frequent bits of small time for wikipedia.) Mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stats placed aside

Coppertwig is willing to provide a process for all editors to go through each section and provide their suggestions, rationale for dispute, etc. If you wish to be a part of that, then please participate and allow (the valuable experience I know you have) to be utilized. An incessant preoccupation with article statistics is not helpful (especially since 1 edit solely in #, can be everything from adding a comma, to erasing an entire paragraph.) I take you at your word that you want to create a better article, so let's use the process Coppertwig is creating to reach consensus on the content, in order to develop an improved article. Redthoreau (talk TR 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make article comments on my talk page. Anything that pertains to Che Guevara should be posted on the article talk page. Therefore, I am moving comments there where they belong. Mattisse (Talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through, and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do what I can. I am not very good at this sort of thing. You probably know that the unblock of Z lead to an arbitration case: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph. It was certainly a difficult time for me. I will add anything more that may be useful. Mattisse (Talk) 13:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reap what you sow

Also note, please, that this kind of edit summary is likely to cause you trouble. Edits with which you disagree are not vandalism, and you do not own the article. (copied from Redthoreau's page. Mattisse (Talk) 03:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this somehow meant for me? If so I am not sure what you mean by the cryptic message, or what would have spurned it on. Redthoreau (talk TR 04:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not meant for you. You need not monitor everything that goes on my talk page. Go to bed. Mattisse (Talk) 04:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For starters you mentioned my name in your message, which is why I responded. Also the edit summary you cite is one by myself, thus it is normal for me to assume you are referring to me. As for your rude "sending me to bed" I won't respond in kind, as I am committed to taking the high road with you for now on. So have a good night ;o). Redthoreau (talk TR 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a gentle reminder to you that it's not going to convince other editors that you have the moral high ground if you write long posts as you did here which say another editor is "insane" "lies more than anyone I have ever seen" etc. I'm not involved enough to know who's right and who's wrong in this dispute, but you won't win by giving the other person ammunition to be able to argue that you are in breach of WP:NPA, if you see what I mean.

Suggestion: This is per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Own comments Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Soulstirrers.Cooke.cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Soulstirrers.Cooke.cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Yazoo 1039.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Yazoo 1039.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm back

Mattisse, I'm back to internet. How is everything going on? I saw that the articles are the same as they were before. What about the ground work, I mean could you read the wow portion of your talk page? I think, with due respect to your process, as you are working on many things and also my articles are a bit critical, its best if you take some time together and complete the editing. Otherwise you will loose links to your thought again and again, and it will increase your hardship. I am really sorry that I have none but you to utilize this way at wiki. Forgive me for being such a continuous load. I wish I had more friends like you at wiki!Shoovrow (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest with you, I don't quite understand it which makes editing hard. Also, would it be alright to reduce the size some? It is very very long. First I have to make it understandable to me! Mattisse (Talk) 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have given the complete responsibility to you, do what you fell. If needed, to preserve the scientific pattern, then I might do some editing after you are complete. But you are free to do as you feel.Shoovrow (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agitation (emotion)

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Agitation (emotion), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not and Misplaced Pages:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

please retract or justify accusations

Please comment on content and not on editors. O.K. you can revert and put the incorrect material back in the article but you cannot remove a tag unilaterally and arbitrarily. Thanks, Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Redthoreau the only editor who reverts what others contribute to the article? What is the point of FAR if this article is not to be improved? Why is inaccurate information allowed to remain? Somebody please explain to me what the rules are regarding this article. Thanks, Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You still have yet to show how my information was inaccurate, or incorrect, despite the fact that I repeatedly have requested it ??? Redthoreau (talk TR 02:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, Mattisse. I'm working on submitting some DYK's for WikiProject Hawaii, but I'm sort of a newbie at this. Can you recommend any tips or things to avoid? I should probably mention that none of the articles I'm working on expanding are "new"; they are all short stubs that have been around for a while. —Viriditas | Talk 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I can help you. I would like to work on some Hawaiian articles. I noticed some interesting articles on Hawaii just recently, plus I am going to Hawaii in two weeks. Where are the stud articles you are talking about? Most of my DKY's I start from scratch and I just wrote an article on something I was interested in. But I would certainly be willing to help you. The key is the hook. Write an article that has a good hook! Mattisse (Talk) 11:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we would love your help! Thanks for the tip. Can you recommend any really good hooks you wrote that I could read? If you want to consider expanding a Hawaii stub, there are two stub categories we are actively expanding. The current article improvement drive is focusing on just 12 stubs for DYK submissions (which you are welcome to work on at anytime) but you may find something far more interesting looking through the ~600 articles in Category:Hawaii stubs. Of course, you are always welcome to join WP:HAWAII. —Viriditas | Talk 12:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to leave right now. But if you read the DYK's and then look at the article it comes from, you can see how it works. Just focus somewhere in the article you are writing on an interesting fact and make sure that the fact is cited, even if the article lacks some citations elsewhere. I will look through the stubs later today. (As far as my hooks, on my user page there is a section called DYK and under that is a list to my DYK's.) Mattisse (Talk) 12:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! —Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some help

Mattisse, I believe I can simplify some aspects of the first article "concept of death and adjustment" for you. First, we need to adjust with death for a healthier life. Primarily this article represents the concept that we need adjustment with death and also it elaborates every possible aspects of the necessity of adjustment - researches, history and scientific inferences. Secondarily, just think, depending on scientific information, religious preachings, and personal beliefs we have different kinds of conception about death. Researches showed that adjustment with the very hard truth - 'death' is variable in different times , in different stages of life , in case of different conceptions we have about death . Example of the last variation is - one who follows Islam or Christianity believes that we die but don't end. Their adjustment with death will differ with that of non believer just because their concept about death is different. So first issue is we need adjustment and the second and ultimate issue is concept of death is related to this adjustment. Is it clear now why the article is "concept of death and adjustment"? To make the issue clearly understandable, I have included the historical and theoretical descriptions of maladjustment with death. Let me know if it helps you.Shoovrow (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association says that people with religious beliefs adjust better than nonreligious people to growing older and to idea that they are going to die. To me this makes sense, as people that believe that "they" will not end at death are more likely to accept death than those who believe that death is the end. Mattisse (Talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)'

I need to email you. Mattisse (Talk) 17:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Subcats

Rape is a subcat of sexual abuse, which is a subcat of sex crimes; so rape should be removed from the parent category (sex crimes), not from sexual abuse. I think you have been doing things the wrong way round, which spreads confusion. (In this diff you've removed the wrong category.) Occuli (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters sex crimes and sexual abuse are not the same thing. Mattisse (Talk) 02:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Opaeka'a Falls

Good work! Have you taken a look at any longer, more developed waterfall articles? That might give you some more ideas for expansion. Sorry, I can't be of any more help right now. I'm typing this from my cell phone because the power is out in South Maui (and other parts of the island) due to high winds, which may have knocked down a power line. Hopefully, I'll be back online tonight. —Viriditas | Talk 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the power is back on, so I will see if I can make any suggestions. Looks like you are doing just fine! —Viriditas | Talk 02:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a source on Google books has commented about the actual shrimp species. I'll see if I can dig something up. That would be a great addition to the article! I wonder if it was a native shrimp? —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm still looking into it, but it appears to be a Halocaridina. Haven't confirmed this just yet. The Hawaiian name appears to be ʻōpaeʻula. A travel website says that the shrimp is native and that they are still found in the pools below the waterfall and that when they lay their eggs, it turns the color of the pools and the waterfall, red. Still searching for more info, but that would work really well in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It turns out it must be a completely different species, as there are apparently no Halocaridina on Kauai. —Viriditas | Talk 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The only shrimp species I can find in the vicinity of Opaeka'a Falls is Atyoida bisulcata, which are known for the ability to climb waterfalls. —Viriditas | Talk 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If you could get any reference regarding the shrimp, that would be great. The article right now is at 4700 kbs. Mattisse (Talk) 12:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to find you something tomorrow morning. I'm going to get back to work on the plant article right now. I think you'll make the 5x no problem. Either way, I'll have something for you in the next 24 hours if you don't have enough content. —Viriditas | Talk 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything on the "ancient temple of Holoholoku Neiau"? I just have a reference to a mention of it as being nearby. Might be able to stick that in under a Nearby attractions section or something.

Sorry, I just spent the last hour trying to sync my Zotero database on two machines so I can work offline on my laptop. I'll have to get back to you tomorrow on this. Keep up the great work. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just uninstalled Zotero because I could not figure out how to use it! Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. It is big enough I think. Now to search for a hook. Since Hawaii is hardly ever meantioned in DYKs (from what I have noticed) they will be prone to select it for that reason with a good hook. Mattisse (Talk) 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted it on DYK with an alt hook. Maybe you can think of a better one. Mattisse (Talk) 16:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it looks great, but my personal preference would be to remove (rolling shrimp in Hawaiian) as it breaks up the flow, but that's just me. Maybe they like that kind of thing on DYK? I have no idea. BTW, I moved the mountain article to the correct spelling. You might want to correct the sp. in the waterfall article, too. Thanks for showing me how to do the DYK by example. You're a good teacher. :) —Viriditas | Talk 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean remove it in the article or the DYK? Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In the DYK, but that's just my opinion. Maybe they prefer that kind of thing there. —Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and since MPerel and I have been working on expanding the Hawaiian plant article since the first, if I submit a DYK at some point today (after some more expansion), do I enter it under April 3? And, would it be better if I added an image or two, or does that not matter for DYK? —Viriditas | Talk 23:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I puzzled over that myself and opted for the earlier date as a precaution. You can always add on to an article after its in DYK. And yes, they love pictures. The picture has to be relevant to the article and a PD—no fair use images for the main page. And the hook, what ever you use, has to have a reference citation in the article. They don't want any unreferenced material on the main page. Mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, put the DYK page on your watchlist when you enter it. Sometimes they ask you a question under the entry, like does this have a reference, or isn't there something more interesting you can say (they like wacko type factoids), or can you shorten the entry (they have a max of 300 bytes for the hook? Mattisse (Talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. —Viriditas | Talk 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know which date to place it under. It's been under expansion from April 1-4. —Viriditas | Talk 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you entered it today, and counted back five days, it would only be a 2 1/2 fold increase if my math is correct. Find a span (the DYK people are working on March 30/31 now so a span after that) that includes a five-fold increase. Or near to a five-fold increase. You clearly have the five-fold increase now. So pick find a span (between April 1 and now) where you have made great strides toward the five-fold increase without necessarily reaching by that date. The span must be between April 1 and now. (They might let you slip under the door if is was March 31 - but I don't know - depends on how hard up they are for entries.) If it is posted for a few days it gets vetted and suggestions may be made regarding the hook, etc. Mattisse (Talk) 16:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I added it under April 1st. If you think it should be somewhere else, or if you think it needs to be changed in any way, please do so. I'm going to bed now.  :) —Viriditas | Talk 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed your "indigenous" to "endemic". It's an important distinction.  :) —Viriditas | Talk 23:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I realized I was in over my head once I started really looks at those articles. What the distinction, plant-wise? Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Indigenous means native to a place, but doesn't exclude the species appearing in multiple places. Endemic means it is only native to one, unique location. Endemic species are common on islands due to their geographical isolation. The Galápagos Islands are one famous example. —Viriditas | Talk 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is problematic to refer to the plant as pigweed because that could be one of three different plants, one of which happens to be Portulaca oleracea, one of its greatest enemies on Nihoa! —Viriditas | Talk 23:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you're very good at this! :) I wish you would join WP:HAWAII. We need you. —Viriditas | Talk 23:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to. I've been looking through the Hawaii stubs but it is hard to find any information to enlarge them with. Most of them already have the easy-to-find info. Through my wikipedia projects I have books on Indian and Chinese architecture, the Cuban revolution etc., I would have to get a source of information on Hawaii. My one book on Hawaii I got whan I was there. I am going again in two weeks. Maybe I'll make an issue of finding something there! Mattisse (Talk) 23:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. I've been thinking of putting together a resources page for editors doing research on Hawaii-related articles, and providing links to good, online resources. Would you find that helpful? Also, I've thought about sorting it by topic. When you were looking through the stubs to expand, would it have helped first if you had been given a list of topics rather than names? —Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be wonderful to have sources. The Hawaiian name thing is very difficult, but by topic—how would that work? I guess I get interested in topics, like architecture, geology, archeology, etc. By the way, what would you prefer to pigweed? I was just trying to get the DYK's attention, like with the rolling shrimp. A hook is a hook. They don't care if it has little to do with the article, expect if pigweed is wrong then you should change it. Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have an idea of how to provide sources and topics to help editors improve Hawaii-related articles. Maybe you will be my guinea pig? :) The term pigweed is ambiguous; yes many web sources call Brown's amaranth "pigweed", and I don't know if it is correct or not, but the last dispatch from the USFWS maintains that it has no common name, and one of its main competitors is in fact, known as a "pigweed". Since there are at least three types of plants that can be called pigweed, it's hard to say who is right and who is wrong, which is why I just went with amaranth! :) —Viriditas | Talk 00:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pigweed is a little more user friendly Latin plant names, for the DKY. Probably if it gets on the main page you get a note from someone or some editor will changed, with an adit summary reflecting his superior state of knowledge. Thanks for the Barnstar. It's much appreciated! By the way, I forgot to mention that I am interested in brdiges, dams, reservoirs and irrigation systme. I nearly started working an an article about a ditch, but my eyes gave out on the Google book. Also, the subject became more complicated because an isolated ditch is nothing if not part of a system and the history of sugar cane, etc. Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That got saved accidentally, with no edit summary so I will thank you properly for the Barnstar! Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you are interested in bridges, dams, reservoirs, and irrigation systems, you're in luck. There is a lot of material on that subject because of the amount of land used in Hawaii for agriculture. In fact, if you do any research on Hawaii history at all, it would be impossible for you to ignore it! This is especially true if you are studying Sugar plantations in Hawaii. I think you will really be interested in Ka Loko Reservoir, as it is still a stub, and there is tons of good information about it in the news archives! —Viriditas | Talk 00:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This is the only warning you will receive. If you continue with your great edits you will be given a barnstar —Viriditas | Talk 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Important note

Mattisse, My friend, for a long time both of us are trying to proceed with the articles and we aren't done with the first complete editing. I am just trying to complete a single edit, at least, by you so that no English spoken person can complain about its presentation due to my poor language quality.

Since you have multiple short durations of time free for wiki, we need to have a plan if we want to finish at least the language and presentation quality editing. But I think, with all respect for you, we do not have any plan that can assure its completion within a definite period of time before anyone scratches it. I spent the whole of 2007 just for these two wiki articles, I mean, I made and waited for the back up materials that were suggested by most of the wiki editors - Publishing of reference book, establishment of the book at US and International university libraries, Publishing of scientific journal articles, publishing mental health magazine articles everything.

After such an effort of more than a year I am very much afraid to see someone scratching the articles before we get any chance to edit them at least once. I hope you understand my reason of insecurity and urgency. Will you please tell me any plan or make any so that we can complete the first editing before its too late! After that if it is scratched by many, I will at least feel satisfied that it is being reconstructed after a standard construction effort.

Now a days I am turning to some robot, some close friends of mine are consoling me that I am under too much stress and everything will be fine when the stress is over. But believe me, wiki is one of the most profound continuous stress for me. I have all my regards for you just like I had from the beginning.Shoovrow (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not any sort of expert, but can I be of any help to the two of you, to work on this article? Remember wiki readers only need a summary of what's been said about the subject, so it needn't be a thesis or anything.special, random, Merkinsmum 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I need to get more clarification and I am asking Shoovrow to email me. Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Concept of death and adjustment

we hit an edit conflict- I was in the edit window for ages lol, mainly copyediting, please take a look at my efforts and see what you think still needs changing.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 18:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses

Mattisse, as you have the hypotheses book and also the review report in the archive of your talk page under the Wow heading, it should be very easy for you to edit the second article Death and adjustment Hypotheses. I know you are very busy, but only you have the fullest materials to edit it. And also this time you will need to write just what you see in the hypotheses , in this work the review report can help too. No brain work like the first article is needed. Let me know.Shoovrow (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Che Guevara article

Greetings, Mattisse. I hope you're not angry at me. I don't know whether you saw my message to you at User talk:Coppertwig#Message for Mattisse. I would really appreciate it if you would take the time to let me know how you're feeling about the situation. I hope you're planning to continue editing the article -- you've contributed a lot already and your continued paticipation will help produce the best possible article. I've asked a couple of questions at Talk:Che Guevara: do you have the book by Gleijeses, Conflicting Missions? Is it OK with you if I reformat the references, basically the way SandyGeorgia was explaining? etc. Looking forward to hearing from you. Regards, --Coppertwig (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I read through your message and, frankly, it was just more of the same. I'm not willing to work on the article anymore. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I've struck out my message. Would you be willing to try talking over the situation with me? --Coppertwig (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, What more is there to say? Mattisse (Talk) 17:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my message came across as a negative one. I hope that good relations can be established among you, me and Redthoreau so that we can all edit the article without feeling that we're being attacked. If we can't seem to establish good relations on our own I wonder whether you would be willing to consider participating in a request for mediation. --Coppertwig (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse talk should not be archived

(This was mistakenly placed at the front during an edit overlap.)

By chance, I came across a peculiar article created by, you, Mattisse. It did not appear to have a grasp on the subject, but apparently was extracted from an obscure book you'd read. On a whim, I decided to look at your previous submissions (something I rarely do), and discovered you have created many articles which display no special knowledge of subject. (For example, a cave which you have obviously not been in, but which I have. For example, a discussion of electrical theory which indicates you know little, but, as it happens, is an area where I used to deal with experts.)

I'm really quite far from wanting to enter into the politics of how useful Wiki articles and stubs are formed. However, after reading the reaction from several Wiki editors here, I have a straightforward request: I would like you to be accountable for your edits, and I would like to see the comments of other editors older than 14 days. Therefore, I request that these stop being archived.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not archiving my talk pages is not the way to go. In three weeks my talk page would be so large that my browser would crash trying to assess it. My collective talk pages are thousands and thousand of kilobytes of mostly boring stuff. If you have specific complaints about me then make those complaints. My edits are available, just as everyones are, under my contributions. Editors who have specific complaints about articles can tag those articles and register the complaint on the article talk page. What ever I have contributed to articles, I do not own them. You are free to make changes as long as they referenced per WP:V. Articles cannot be based on personal experience. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you make so many edits, you need to provide a convenient method to review them. A page several times as large as this talk page would cause no problem, even for a dial-up user.

Your specific edits are not what this talk page is always about. This page is for community discussions regarding the nature of your edits, as well. As such, there is no justification for them to be archived whatsoever.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had to lower the size before archiving recently as my browser could not access it without getting script messages. Many people just delete every message from their talk page as soon as they read it and have no archives. The talk page is not for review of edits in the manner you suggest. The article talk pages are for that. Maybe I will start just deleting every message I want. I usually leave them there no matter how obnoxious, but I am not required to do so. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are required to do is be responsible to the Wiki community. Wouldn't you agree? If you find yourself in an unusual technical situation where you are unable to display large pages, as you suggest, then perhaps you should find a technical solution, rather than claiming you are exempt from review.

The article talk pages are unsuited for a systematic problem with an editor's contributions. Reviewing your contributions, it appears that you have a penchant for adding new material from dozens of different fields, from a single or few a sources, without having any particular understanding or appreciation of other sources. Then, when someone questions it, you resort to intimidation, for example by explaining that you have 44 K edits. I think the community would like to understand why your technical situation and your number of edits exclude your contributions from evaluation -- as a whole.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That is your opinion. If you think it is a problem for Misplaced Pages, seek opinions about it through their may ways of dealing with conflicts between editiors. Look under help. There is dispute resolution, mediation, request for comment and arbitration. Please do not post on my talk page anymore. Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have just refused arbitration from Coppertwig, above, why would I proceed along those lines?

You still have yet to explain why you cannot leave your talk page unarchived.

Apparently there are pages and pages of complaints about you. Is Wiki unable to deal with this? Many obvious infractions? Covering up evidence of wrongdoing? Intimidating editors?

24.130.14.173 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

24.130.14.173: You are aware that you can review Mattisse's talk page archives by clicking on the links 1 through 14 at the top of this page, right? Talk page archiving is a common technical practice here, and is independent of any comment-hiding action. –Pomte 21:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Aloha Plumeria Award

		The Aloha Plumeria
		I, Viriditas, award Mattisse the Aloha Plumeria Award for helping the Hawaii WikiProject research, expand, and improve articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Saudade article

Not to step on your toes, but I think we should work with the saudade article more subtly. It does seem to involve OR, but it's also a decent article, rather than a passel of falsehoods. I think we can get it sourced and otherwise verified without so many tags. Mr. IP (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have offended you. I am just so horrified when I see an article like that as wikpeida presents itself to the world as reliable and referenced that I am sorry if I over did it. That method of tagging has worked remarkably well with a great many articles (some which I thought were hopeless!). Many editors do not know that WP:V is policy and that any unsourced material can be removed by any editor at any time. So editors become quite motivated to fix it.

Did you know that it against the guidelines to remove tags without fixing the Problem? You should also remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has a duty to warn general readers of possible inaccuracies. It is very important to be responsible regarding this. It is wikipedia's article and wikipedia's credibility rests on being honest about article quality.

Especially the OR and at least some general notice that the article is largely unreferenced and unverified is in order. If you do not replace at least some of the tags then I will have to. Please be a responsible wikipedia editor. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 12:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Natural Law (Star Trek: Voyager)

thanks for editing this page; you appear to have edited a tag claiming "The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article". Since the article is about an episode of a television series, surely it should be EXPECTED to be the main focus. i've left the tag, if you can explain your reasoning i'll shush about it. thanks! Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The best thing for you to do to get an idea of how to write an aricle on fiction is read Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and Misplaced Pages:Notability (fiction). Overall the messages is that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and articles must be encyclopedic in nature. Specifically, plot summaries are discussed here WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regards, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Personal Autobiographies

Pigweed

Heheheh...thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Coconut Island would be a very easy DYK if you are interested. There's loads of info about it online. It's also very interesting across the board, from history to science. Take a look, it might be something you would enjoy. —Viriditas | Talk 12:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I'll give it a try. –Mattisse (Talk) 12:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions as to sources? It's already over 2000, so I would have to add at least 8,000, and glancing at the online stuff, it seems most of it is already in the article. –Mattisse (Talk) 12:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can start by looking at Kāne'ohe Bay. That will give you some perspective of how to lead-in, as the island is the largest of five within the bay. That article also provide some tips on geology: Coconut Island is an isolated volcanic remnant located in the southwest part of the bay. I'm sure the USGS has something on this, but I haven't found it yet. The secret of doing research on niche topics like this is not to directly search for information about the main topic, but to search by subtopic. You can find a lot of info this way. But to search for these subtopics, you need to pull them out of the general info links first: , , , , So, if you start with Christian Holmes, you get Christiaan Klieger's The Fleischmann Yeast Family as a source on GBooks - with info about Holmes and Coconut Island. And if you keep doing this for every subtopic, you get more and more sources. Try Edwin W. Pauley and you get this and many more. Keep doing that for every subtopic and you'll have enough material. The only issue is the early Hawaiian and geological history, which you may have to get directly from print material, which I may be able to find for you by Monday. —Viriditas | Talk 13:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this message now. Do not know why I did not see it before. Maybe I thought it was MizaBotIII. I will examine it more closely tommorrow. –Mattisse (Talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology

That was very sharp of you to start working on the subtopic instead; You have good instincts. Now, instead of one DYK, you will probably turn it into five! As for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, no, the institute is not located there, but they do study species that are endemic to it, and they probably have a habitat setup to reproduce some aspects of it, hence the confusion. To read more about where the institute is located, see Oahu. Also, you can see the name of the island in their logo (Coconut Island, Oahu).—Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands article explains which islands are covered by the designation. —Viriditas | Talk 01:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology

Hi Mattisse,

Great job on Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology!

One possible improvement would be a picture, especially if it is like the stunning image on HIMB's homepage. « D. Trebbien (talk) 00:47 2008 April 7 (UTC)

Yes, that would be wonderful. But what is the status of the picture. Is it PD? –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say, so we must assume ©HIMB all rights reserved.

Usually what I do, though, is contact the organization to ask if the picture is more liberally licensed. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:05 2008 April 7 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a good one (Creative Commons BY-ND, too). Just a few minutes... « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:12 2008 April 7 (UTC)

Great! That is wonderful of you. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. :(

I can't upload ND works!

Here is a link to the page with the image: http://www.coralite.net/himb.html . Maybe there is a way...

« D. Trebbien (talk) 01:16 2008 April 7 (UTC)

WikiProject Hawaii Stub expansion and DYK coordinator

Mattisse, please consider my earlier offer of joining the Hawaii WikiProject. We really need an editor like yourself to help the project expand stubs and submit DYK's. Additionally, we have a watchlist which would enable you to watch these articles for vandalism, oversee stub expansions by other editors, help or encourage them to submit DYK's, and invite new editors to the project. We would even like you to write a little bit about how to write a good DYK for the newsletter. I think with your help, and perhaps a team of editors working with you, we could cut the stubs down from 600 to 300 in a matter of six months. If I created a subpage in the project for this use, you could even make recommendations to us as to which stubs you feel we should spend our time on, and which you think would be best nominated for deletion or handed over to other projects. Basically, I would like you to lead a team on this. Don't worry about having all the resources or information available. I'm going to make an effort to add a resource page to the project for that very purpose. Please think about it; We really need your help. —Viriditas | Talk 07:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I would like to join. Just don't expect too much of me. I don't have control of my time often plus my brain gets fried. I just got a DYK on 'Opaeka'a Falls so that is two DYK's in a row for Hawaii! Also, I nominated Hawai`i Institute of Marine Biology on April 6. –Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! I have no expectations; please work at your own pace. What I hope to do is put a team together, so that if either one of you needs help with anything, we can all depend on each other. But, I must admit, I don't think we will ever find anyone like you. I'm surprised at how fast you work. What's your secret? —Viriditas | Talk 22:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 7 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 'Opaeka'a Falls, 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.

MD article

I was under the impression that because of our turbulent history, that you were going to go your own separate way. Considering all of the issues we have had recently, are you sure that there isn't anything else you wouldn't rather be doing, which would be more enjoyable and helpful for the both of us. There are millions of articles on Misplaced Pages to edit, and yet you coincidentally still decide to insert yourself into the 2 or 3 I begin editing to devote time to, knowing that in the past are personalities clash into intractable conflict. Why would you want to purposely "entangle" us into a quarrel which you have repeatedly stated you no longer want to partake in. You have every right to edit whatever you want, that isn’t the issue, the issue is whether your motivations are in good faith, considering our past. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC) {edit conflict)

I was working on the category Autobiographies and came across it sorting them. Unfortunaely, the article is categorized in such a way then it ends up there. As I sort I put tags on article as needed. Really I would rather not get involved with you, but I also cannot let an egregious violatiom of Wikepedia standards go unchecked. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I highly doubt this claim, as you and I personally have quarreled over the films article for the book. Just admit it, you enjoy causing me frustration, and this is not what Misplaced Pages is about. The article has not been tagged for weeks/months in that state, and all of the sudden, the same person who has been edit warring with me for weeks, and been warned not to tag to harass, shows up with a barrage of tags and acts in an aggressive tone per usual. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me and the articles I work on with a barrage of tags in order to create frustration. Tags or criticisms from you are not in good faith, as our long and quarreling history shows. If this continues I will be forced to report you. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets get some outside opinions on this article. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about you finding one of your editor friends to agree with you either. How about lets get some separation, as we had the past few days which worked great for both of us. The probability of you stumbling upon the 2-3 articles I am working on, a few days after we have been warring for months is suspect. Please go your own way, to prevent us from having future edit wars, like in the past. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent}Reply to "I highly doubt this claim" If you look at my edit history for the last several hours you will see that was what I was indeed doing. Otherwsie, I would not have come across the article. Please assume good faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I ? You have made false accusations about me, which still go unanswered, and we have been at "edit war" for weeks ... I have extended an olive branch several times and been rebuked. It is not enough to hide behind the veil of "good faith" now, as you attempt to reignite and instigate our dorment conflict. Redthoreau (talk TR 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The same way I have to assume good faith with you. I feel that I have been treated very badly by you and have been driven away from editing the Che Guevara article. and it is very hard to do now, when you have already started the personal attacks in you edit summary. If you do not cooperate in fixing the article I will seek outside help with this issue, as the violation, IMO, is egregious. Please assume good faith, regardless of our editing history. Also please do not used edit summaries to make personal attack –Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Once again, this is how our problems start, because you fail to recognize the proper account of events. You made attacks on me first in the edit summaries by declaring I was "glorifying" him and the article was all "my opinion" etc.

this article is Original Research - it presents the editors view only & any reverences are not neutral - article is written only to glorify subject of article 18:05, 7 April 2008 Mattisse

Even veiling it as "one editor". The only thing egregious here is your behavior, and the amazing fact that after several days of peace, you are beginning to cause more conflict. You have treated me very badly for weeks ... I get along very well with all other editors I am working with right now ... the only problem comes with you, as you only act in bad faith, over, and over again. You never "assume good faith" with me ... and it showed by you declaring me creating a "glorifying" article. While I did show good faith, by addressing your "would" suggestion. Your mis-recollection of events even within the last hour is truly astonishing. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You see, instead of acting properly and messaging me expressing your view that the article was too "praise worthy", you automatically assume BAD FAITH and assume that I am purposely trying to GLORIFY Guevara, instead of assuming I may have a different view than you. instead of wanting to discuss on the talk page ... (especially considering our history) you resort to a barrage of tags meant to annoy. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There is peace if I do not edit the articles you consider yours. I was editing on Che Guevara long before you arrived on the scene in November of 2007. You do not WP:OWN articles on Che Guevara. I would edit this article before you came, why can I not now? –Mattisse (Talk) 19:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You had never edited this article before ... and had been editing articles on Hawaii for the past several days. Then all of the sudden as we had peace, you discover an article I have been working on, and instead of talking on the talk page, you start with a barrage of tags and attack me in the edit summary. Look at how harmoniously me and Coppertwig have worked on the CG article now that you have left. My problem is not with any editors ... it is with your behavior and bad faith actions. Redthoreau (talk TR 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict} You apparently have been following me around. I did not know you were currently editing the Motorcycle Diaries, as frankly, I have not been paying attention to what you do. Anyway, regardless of where I have been editing, I still am permitted to edit Che Guevara article. Where do you get the idea that I am not? –Mattisse (Talk) 19:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lets work on the article following the proper guidelines in Misplaced Pages:Notability (books). How the editors feel about the subject of an article should not be apparent to the reader. Lets make this article that way. Also, long plot descriptions are heavily discouraged by wikipedia. –Mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed you around at all, realizing that per your usual behavior that you would seek out admins to misrepresent your case to (which you did again), I clicked on Contribs and saw that you have been making dozens of Hawaii themed edits. I never said you WERE NOT allowed to edit the article ... I claimed that you were acting in bad faith and to annoy. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict}

It is considered a personal attack to accuse someone of bad faith. Please assume good faith. Your assumptions are only worsening the situation. Please assume good faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY: Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#another_use_of_POV_tags_and_other = There you have it. I expect you to cease your abusive use of article tags without justification, so that reporting you will not be necessary. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict}

It is considered a personal attack to accuse someone of bad faith. Please assume good faith. Your assumptions are only worsening the situation. Please assume good faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to describe bad faith as so. The only time you show good faith, is when you repeat the word over and over lately (to cover yourself). However your actions have been deplorable for weeks in relation to me, so forgive my skepticism. I see better than I hear. Redthoreau (talk TR 21:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Village pump - they gave some good suggestions

Those were good suggestions they gave at the village pump about The Motorcycle Diaries. Lets follow them. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

another good suggestion: please stop making comments about the other editor's motivations to make an edit. Just argue your point basing yourself on hard facts and don't get involved on personal discussions, please --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

a strong suggestion: the book has reviews from The Telegraph and NYT, so please stop at once doubting its notability. The books is *clearly* notable by Misplaced Pages:Notability (books) criteria, in concrete:

3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.

5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.

So stop doubting the notability and stop citing this guideline for backing your doubts, or I will assume that you are trying to make a WP:POINT for some reason, and I'll just go ahead and report you to WP:ETIQUETTE or the adequate place for this sort of reporting, understood?. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with dispute template policy

Misplaced Pages:Dispute templates They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form in a separate section which includes the template name. As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates.

Well, I went to the page above as you suggested. So I will use inline templates after this. It still does not say you can revert minutes later or be rude and accuse the other of bad faith. –Mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Also maybe you should read Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point and Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system Redthoreau (talk TR 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I hope that very positive word is a sign that the above dispute is ending. Mattisse, I'm sorry that I didn't reply earlier to certain messages from Redthoreau to you on my talk page. I wasn't sure how to respond, then got distracted. I should probably have responded immediately. In any case, I've just now posted a message on my talk page addressed to Redthoreau, partly in reply to those messages, which you might be interested in looking at. Note that I've apologized to you for over-reacting previously and I hope I've avoided over-reacting this time; I'm sorry if it seems to you like an under-reaction. :-) I hope my message doesn't make things worse. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It will only end if I cease editing the articles in question. I stopped Che Guevars. Now it is a question if I will be driven from a second article. The only thing that has changed is that one editor, doncram, came to my defense. But it will not be worth it to him, I'm sure, to stand up to Redthoreau. No one has so far, so I don't expect any change. In fact I expect an ugly post from him to appear right under this one. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)