User talk:Mattisse

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Elli 191 5 3 97 16:53, 7 June 2024 1 day, 1 hour no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 14:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

If you post on my talk page I will answer it here. Thanks!

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

GAR of Exploration of Jupiter

Exploration of Jupiter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Advisory Council

Ignore who turned the council down. Focus on who the council never asked.

I, for one, was not asked. Malleus was not asked. I assume you were not asked? Was Iridescent? It seems that Tony1 may have been asked (the statements are vague). I am sure others can speak up. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asked, though, given the whole Matthew Hoffman ase and a willingness o speak out when I think they've acted badly, perhaps it's understandable, given that they wouldn't want someone pointing out all their injustices and wontonviolation of the NPOV policy. (e.g Scientology, where having a view = topic ban)Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I want to know the process entailed in the selection, or non selection. I agree that both of you would have been an excellent members, as I do believe in your impartiality, although I do not always agree with your points of view. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Really it does not matter a lot/jot who was asked. The questions are: was this thought through, what is the purpose, what kind of editors are needed, and why? The impression of a fait accompli has left a lot of editors (many well established) with a sour taste in the mouth. Arbcom was doing really well until this. Geometry guy 23:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I was feeling good until this. It is unclear who is at the steering wheel of this proposal, and what is their investment in having this "committee" whose duties are undefined and the selection process of which is unspecified. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the thinking behind this move, and I'm keeping an open mind, I'm absolutely certain that you've got nothing to worry about personally Mattisse. That six or seven or however many members took part in your ArbCom case isn't really all that surprising, as lots of editors did. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true. There were "key" editors, and those are on the "committee", plus one who "turned it down" allegedly–one third. So you thing it is a "coincidence"? Name those who were more key. It is enough for me to lose my new found faith in ArbCom. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Malleus is completely right to keep an open mind and a relaxed perspective: that is what is best for wikipedia. Geometry guy 00:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, Mattisse. If they dared to do anything like that there would be hell to pay. But they probably know that and wouldn't bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that Joopercoopers second most edited page is User talk:Giano II[1], also on the "list". I don't think the names on the list are independent from each other, aside from the issue that two of them are already on ArbCom and presumably know the agenda. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[2][3][4] Not an encouraging group. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronicle of a Disappearance review

Hey Mattisse! I've come to inform you that, unfortunately, I probably won't be able to work on the article as I had planned and the original nominator has still not returned. I don't what the procedure is here, but if nothing is done before the expiration of the hold, don't hesitate to fail the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In an unrelated incident, my home internet access has gone on the blink so won't be able to work on Coral Reefs until a replacement part arrives. Should he back online within a week, in the meantime thanks for your continuing efforts to improve the article; dave souza editing from a public library as Davesalterego (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill's Resignation

Hi, Mattisse, I think it's time to withdraw now. Admittedly trading of insults between Giano and you is probably not ArbCom's greatest concern right now [ :-) ], but you'll get brownie points for walking away. It looks like the Council idea is already dead, so there's nothing worth fighting about. Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Philcha, walk away now, you've said your piece. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that there are different standards for different editors, and that Giano is immune from normal standards.. Besides, he is a member of the "special committee" appointed by ArbCom. Given that reality, that he can cause an arbitration against me, I will take your advice. Thank you for pointing out the reality of Wikipedia. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point Mattisse. The point is that getting down and dirty with Giano will do you no favours, and neither will calling for Kirill's head. Let it be. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not calling for Kirill's head. Please stop implying that I am. I asked for an acknowledgement of poor judgment only. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough Mattisse, whatever you say. I'll just leave you with this, something that I keep coming back to, but keep forgetting:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

the courage to change the things I can,

and the wisdom to know the difference.

--Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Malleus, Are you willing to remove Giano's ad hominem attack on me?[5] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  This ad hominem serves only to indicate how sour is Giano's perspective. I've no idea why he is tolerated, but the best approach, in my view, is to ignore him. Geometry guy 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  No, I am not, and neither would I remove it or ask anyone else to remove it had it been said about me. We need to learn to be a bit thicker skinned around here, less of the "personal attack" nonsense over a bit of name calling. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I agree as well. Admitting to mistakes is not easy: such admissions should be received gracefully. Kirill may have made some good faith mistakes, just as you have Mattisse, and indeed we all have. The "special committee" is not going to happen, and was never intended to cause arbitration cases anyway. Geometry guy 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I never asked for Krill to resign. I asked for him to acknowledge a mistake. Giano is not just "tolerated", he is asked to be a member of the "special committee" by ArbCom. Along with Joopercoopers, whose edit analysis shows that Giano's page is his second highest edit;[6] and who justifies Giano's behavior.[7] What is going on? Actually, I am learning from this. Just tack "behaving" on a statement and you can say anything. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not try to learn from the bad behaviour of other editors. Geometry guy 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a person selected for the "special committee" by ArbCom and defended by another member of the "special committee". What am I to think? Please do not ask me to be irrational in the face of evidence. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All I've seen is people asking you not to trade insults with Giano. Nobody's asking you to be irrational, simply to be dignified. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On another issue - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Question_on_arb_presence_on_ACPD_by_Casliber - you are right and here is a place to evaluate positives and negatives of me being there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattise, you'd better stop pursuing "catch Giano's personal attack" for your own safety. Once you said the comment toward Krill that is perceived as "distasteful" by many, the people would automatically recall your ArbCom probation.--Caspian blue 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you threatening me for complaining about a personal attack? My arbitration said that those who attack me are also responsible. (Quoted from my arbitration)

:* Would note here that some behaviour by others has not helped. Sometimes Mattisse was not the instigator. -Carcharoth

• Tend to agree with Carcharoth. We're not laying all of the blame on Mattisse. -Cool Hand Luke

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I really am begging you to step away from this. Whatever the rights and wrongs may be this spat is going to harm nobody but you. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Mattisse, I just advised you for your own safety because I know many people who are agitated there, would lash out at you if you continue to do so. Please have good faith. --Caspian blue 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing in bad faith. Yet I was personally attacked. Why am I not safe for complaining about a personal attack? Why is the personal attacker not only allowed to personally attack me, but get "chosen" by ArbCom to be on a "special committee" to advise ArbCom. Please explain the thinking here, as I really don't understand. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'll try this for one last time. Please let your advisors fight your corner and withdraw from the discussion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on Mattisse, what you were talking about with me, you're caring too much. Let's just step around the block for a walk.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) (And only because I was drafted as an advisor/mentor). I have no idea who Krill is and why he/she is resigning but - Matisse, it is almost always better to step away once you've said your piece and almost never makes sense to keep pushing things. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I did not advocate that Kirill resign, despite all the hoopla saying that I did. My subsequent statements were all in defense of personal attacks on me, and not advocating anything else. I had though that arbitration would reduce this tendency of others to personally attack me for no reason. I see that it has not. Rather, the arbitration is being used as a reason that others are allowed to personally attack me and a reason that I cannot defend myself against personal attacks. It is used to threaten me, so that others are allowed to personally attack me with impunity. It just reduces my desire to edit articles. So be it. I thank you for commenting though. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This first test of your plan is not going well Mattisse, time to take a break. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And, it is rarely necessary to react to 'personal attacks'. Give it a miss and settle down with a good book instead (I just finished Land of Marvels by Barry Unsworth and, despite the weak ending, strongly recommend it!). You have more than enough people on wikipedia who respect your contributions to have to defend yourself each and every time. Always focus on the positives! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• For what it is worth - I found Giano's comments tasteless and equally applicable to him. Don't take his bait. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comment is especially worthy as you are normally a defender of Giano so your comment is more meaningful. Truly, I am grateful for your acknowledgement. I never requested anyone to resign. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Matisse, without prejudice to the rights and wrongs of it, I've removed Giano's description of you[8] as it's really of so little consequence and is apparently causing behaviour from you seemingly out of all proportion to the action. The sage User:Geogre is fond of describing the internet as populated by eggshells armed with hammers. Your eggshell is supposed to be cosied by your mentors. Would you please talk this through with them, and let them act on your behalf? Kind regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Joopercoopers just gave very good advice. In situations where someone is attacking you, think carefully and preferably consult your mentors. I suggest that in general (life will always throw up exceptions):

• If you have actually made a mistake, even if it's minor and affects only a small part of the issue, apologise up-front. That may cool down the issue. If not, it helps to make you the good guy and your oponent(s) the bad guy.
• Stick as far as possible to the content. Text that focusses on your feelings would make you look over-sensitive and / or arrogant, and would help your opponents in 2 ways: by showing that they've hurt you and encouraging them to continue; and by distracting attention from the real issue(s), which they tried to avoid by attacking you.
• If the attacks are persistent, by a gang, or really severe, consult your mentors. Whichever of us you consult will probably look, among other things, about how to bring the attack(s) to a sharp halt. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Principles describes principles that apply to all editors equally, and a brisk reminder plus a hint of the consequences of ignoring these principles will make attackers think twice. --Philcha (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Matisse, be strong here, anon ips like me are rooting for your success, along with your mentors. 74.66.17.162 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattise, I've just seen your 3 most recent contributions to the "Advisory Council" discussion (all in section "Not about governance") - firm but concise, constructive and level-headed. When you're good you're very very good :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OTOH I don't think you should follow up on your "The bad humor, nasty behavior, groups of entrenched editors supporting each other, may be reflective of the way thing have always been done", which has left you vulnerable to being lured into a trap. If someone asks for examples, I'd suggest e.g. "These problems are so widespread that it would be unfair to identify just a few of those who have been involved in such conflicts". Unfortunately you still need to be a little more cautious than the average editor. --Philcha (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, thanks for the suggested wording, if asked for a follow up. I thought a lot about posting that comment before I did. There is always the tension between expressing a fundamental belief I consider important to the dialog, or out of fear, saying nothing. I appreciate your advice. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kangchu system

A few minor lapses aside, I think you have done a very good copyedit job for the article which I have since amended. Perhaps you may want to take a look at the article one more time before endorsing itas GA? Thanks! Mr Tan (talk) 06:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have revisted it. Nice job? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I just read the solution to the arbcom case you just endured. I admire the fact that you proposed that, that you went through all that and you're still here, and that you're willing to change regardless.I dream of horses (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Losing heart

Hi, Matisse-

Thanks for dropping by my talk page with your encouraging but rather cryptic message. I've searched and found you are in a mediation yourself with an editor who is not only allowed to be rude, but supported if not incited to be so. What a shame! How sad for Wiki! For myself, I'm not going to press on to try to make people abide by the rules. The education is in realizing how very human the Wiki community is. "Truth is fallen in the street."

I see you are a Personage...but still get no respect. I've dropped the nonsense on the talk page of the Richard Sternberg article. Why lower myself?

On a more constructive note: What's a Wiki copy editor? This is news to me. Wiki has a great deal to admire. Yopienso (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Back again, so much to do!

Thanks for the note, am back now. While offline I did some more research and have now made some additions to The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs as well as tweaking some of the improvements you made, and adding alt. captions for the pictures. More info to come on Publication and subsequent editions and Reception. There's also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1 to pursue, only one commentator so far, maybe because I messed up the talk page template. Perhaps something to notify the relevant project about. Also have to get my mind into gear to reach out to Yopienso, but have to go out first, to get the shopping done. So much to do! . . dave souza, talk 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, Philcha has come up with some strong points, rather than mess around with the article I'm in the process of trying out ideas at User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids. Any comments welcome, but it's still a work in progress and I'll aim to alert you when it seems ready to go into mainspace. Sorry about the setback! . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where has Philcha commented? I can't find his remarks. But if you intend to rework the article, perhaps you should withdraw it from FAC. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Initially on my talk page, and in draft form at User:Philcha/Sandbox/ FA rev draft - Fertilisation of Orchids. It's rather like responses to FA comments, if you think it's getting too drastic I'll withdraw it, not sure about how to proceed. Must cook my tea, back in about an hour. . dave souza, talk 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, at User talk:dave souza#Proposal for action I've proposed steps to revise the article for the Fertilisation of Orchids - FA review issues, as shown at User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids. Hope this meets your concerns, particularly with regard to keeping the quality of writing and focus on Darwin's approach to experimental science. Any comments welcome, and if you can copyedit it at all that will be hugely welcome. You may of course prefer to wait until it's in mainspace. . dave souza, talk 17:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I will take a look and am happy to copy edit it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Since it's now near midnight, I've completed the move to mainspace, so Fertilisation of Orchids is now revised as proposed. Your copy editing will be much appreciated, hope you find it's not too bad! . . dave souza, talk 22:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there was repetition of the "big book" on variation to give continuity from publication of The Origin to the start of Botany as recreation, so I've reorganised it to keep it all in the latter section. Also, sadly, found that "confounded cocks, Hens & Ducks" was from Oct. 1861 so left it out. Added more citations to secondary sources which I used for these changes, and rationalised some other citations.[9] . . .dave souza, talk 13:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Good News

Good news, though small, for you in your e-mail account. If you have anything to say, say it by e-mail please.Shoovrow (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

We had a couple reverts between us, but I think I found the reason for our misunderstanding: there is an unsourced sentence in Primate which suggests that they "may" date back 86mya. I din't initially notice its lack of a ref, but just took it at face value when comparing the numbers cited in each article. This was the cause of my confusion so I added a fact tag to that and now completely accept your revions at Human Evolution. Thanks, and happy editing. Doc Tropics 23:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, as 85 million didn't make sense. The article is woefully under referenced. Thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I've remove the comment at the top of the FAR page saying that people should only have one FAR at a time, since the de facto operating consensus was that multiple ones were allowed. Just in case you were thinking of nominating another (or three or four) while Greeks was still open, as you raised concerns about people being too worried/huilty about keeping old FARs. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The process does go excruciatingly slow. I nominated another. Hope my nom is OK. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. Nishkid, Cirt and myself all have 4+ up there YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem personally, no YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

City of London School

I've been doing a peer review for City of London School and after I wrap it up today, it probably wouldn't hurt for them to get a little extra advice, they intend to nom for GA. If you can. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Johns River

I see that you may be interested in the topic, or at least two images in the article. I just expanded it considerably and it's at GAN and PR right now. Are you interested in doing the GA or peer review? I appreciate all comments on the content and suggestions to improve it. --Moni3 (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Message received and replied to:-) R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Areas For Reform: Redlinking Wikipedians

Hi Matisse, I very much like dave souza's idea to encourage red linking at Areas For Reform. I've tentatively created a Wikipedia category Redlinking Wikipedians‎ (as a sub-cat of Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy) and an associated user box. Is this idea useful?

Feel free to edit the category and/or userbox ... or to suggest deletion.

With good wishes, Esowteric+Talk 12:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ROFL and Orchids

Hi, Mattisse. ROFL = "roll on floor laughing" and ROFLMAO = "roll on floor laughing my ... off". Looks like you need to find a dictionary of internet slang, for exmaple this one.

I have 4 GA reviews in progress, and real life (yes, I have one!) is hectic at present, so I may not be able to contribute much to Fertilisation of Orchids in the next week or so - sorry. --Philcha (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I tried some things and it works. Spits out the information. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict on the article!> Thought someone was laughing at Orchids! Sorry that focus has been lost a bit in trying to expand the aspects of relationship to other projects and Darwin's life at the time, will have a go a tightening things up. Maybe worth pulling it from FAC until there's been more of a chance to resolve these issues and get feedback, possibly reconsidering the article name? Don't know how to do that, myself, do I just make an announcement on the FAC page? . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it needs to be withdrawn. I tried to fix the specific points the opposer brought up. And I plan to go through it again today. It would be good to get more feedback. I asked Philcha for an opinion, but he is too busy right now. If you do want to withdraw it, you can just post on the FAC page that you want to do so. Also, you can notify User:SandyGeorgia. It will withdrawn upon request. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I'll return to it later today with a particular aim of tightening the focus. . . dave souza, talk 12:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

<ri> At FAC, Philcha has questioned the paragraph "Darwin began to include women who were botany enthusiasts in his correspondence. As a popular and acceptable activity, botany had been taken up by many middle class ladies. On the recommendation of John Lindley, Darwin wrote to Lady Dorothy Nevill who responded generously by sending numerous exotic orchids, and requested a signed photograph of him to hang up in her sitting room next to portraits of her notable friends including Hooker." My feeling is that the general issue is valid, the last bit "and requested a signed photograph of him to hang up in her sitting room next to portraits of her notable friends including Hooker" is amusing and biographically of interest, but a bit offtopic and could be deleted. What think you? . dave souza, talk 16:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the lede you talk of the "vogue at the time for growing exotic orchids." You also say his field work "developed into enjoyable and challenging experiments, aided by his family, village friends and a widening circle of correspondents across Britain and worldwide." To me the Lady Dorothy Nevill material is an example of these statements. Just the sort of vogue upper crust Victorian ladies would enjoy, plus it shows the breath of those who contributed. This collaboration of Darwin with so many is one of his charms. That is the way I took it. I don't see it as a sop thrown to feminists. It has never been denied there were educated Victorian ladies. Plus I do disagree with some of his other nitpicks, perhaps because I have looked at the references you supply. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will leave the photo bit in for now. Please don't hesitate to make it clear where you think that I'm going too far in conceding changes to meet nitpicks. Any such advice is greatly welcomed. . . dave souza, talk 17:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

I like to like the people I write about. His involvement in Stalin's purges makes that very difficult indeed. Just so much blood. At least Speer never got his hands dirty. Still, I'll keep moving forward on the article. I don't know how long it will take me to finish. A while, probably, it is easy enough to write biography, but the discussions of his premiership will take more sources and more time.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of him visiting China, where Mao invited him to swim in a pool. Fat and unfit, Khrushchev thrashed about in the shallow end with a floating device, while Mao elegantly dove in and swam several laps using a variety of strokes—all the while lecturing Khrushchev on communist doctrine. There are so many scenes like that, it becomes unreal. My main beef with the book is that all I can say is, "How could this possibly have happened?" Meeting with world leaders that end up crass shouting matches and brute ego plays. It is interesting to contemplate a person who can figure out how to build a motorcycle all on his own as a kid, but is almost totally uneducated, learning on the job. making fantastic agriculture errors, like declaring American corn was the way to go for all of the Soviet Union. Like much of Russian history, it is incomprehensible how all of this could have occurred. He reminds me of some very severe criminals I have known. Repulsive, yet charming and fascinating. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I like to think of him on his American tour, visiting his friend Gornt in Iowa, and enjoying his trip to IBM more for the self service cafeteria than for the machines. Yet nearly alienating Eisenhower at Camp David, and a year later, destroying the Paris Conference before returning to New York, shoe in hand. Very primitive emotions, yet in his way extremely intelligent.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He lived in horrible filth in the industrial/mining job. The poverty described was unbelievable (although I have read such before). Then feeling "insecure" as the book repeatedly says, through wits, wiles and hard work, he gets to the top and enjoys it. An animal cunning and a natural understanding of people. He talked easily to others, "jabbered" and joked. I think he lived in the moment, relishing enjoyment, with little personal reflection. So he felt bad when the brutality hit him viscerally in the face, as when confronted with the reality a broken old friend, but the rest of the time it was pushed to the side by his immersion in work and political maneuvering that demanded full attention. Just scraw "arrest" across the top of a paper. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Disinfoboxman

I know it's frustrating and a sore spot for you, but comments like this won't help matters. I'd advise you to stay well away from any discussions related to Geogre/Giano/Bishonen for the time being. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)