User talk:Mattisse: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:32, 28 December 2006

Thanks for
visiting my Talk: page.
If you are posting to me, please:
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Use headlines when starting new talk topics.
*Do not make personal attacks.
If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here.

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Temple Dinesh info - Wikipedia:Image use policy - Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Contents

[1] from User:Salix alba which somehow disappeared off my talk page

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 00:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page

Not much to say apart from, aw shucks. --Salix alba (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Survey_notification

RE:Wikipedia_talk:Survey_notification#Internal_spamming_is_not_a_blockable_offense You wrote:

It's been used recently by the School Project people to fight deletionists on the afd lists. Admins knew about it and no one was blocked. Mattisse 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me who the School Project people are? Thank you. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logging off

Hi, I'm logging off for now. Will talk to you again tomorrow. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Arbitration post about sockpuppet stuff

Thought you would be interested that I put up some stuff about you and sockpuppet investigations on the Arbitration talk page here. Thanks for the links/info you gave me on the earlier investigation which I don't think I was aware of. Sorry I don't seem to have any definite answers, mostly more questions. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 21:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these comments are about what you've done. And, not to insult you, I don't think you are that important in this case. I would call the continued focus by some people on you (and possible sockpuppets) to be a form of strawman argument, a way of diverting attention from the core issues of the case. I think the arbitrators will see this as long as they have the links and diffs in front of them. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence Review?

Hi Mattisse. I moved the discussion of evidence to User talk:BostonMA/Mattisse/Evidence. One of your comments sounded to me as though you were not going to present evidence. But then you added more diffs to my talk page -- so I assume you would like me to continue to review these. Let me know if that's not the case. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse. Yes, I moved your comment to the evidence discussion page. Originally 999 tagged User:Dattat as being a sock of User:Shravak [2] Later User:Netsnipe tagged the account as being a sock of User:Mattisse [3]. User:Shravak was only blocked for 12 hours and denied being a sockpuppet. He/she is still editting. --BostonMA ^talk 02:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk page. --BostonMA ^talk 02:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you. That is not a discussion that really belongs here. It was probably inappropriate for me to share my opinion of James Brown as well. Expect an email soon. --BostonMA ^talk 02:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

z Me:The way I learned about the tags was looking at the history of the user page. --BostonMA ^talk 02:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC) You:What does your religion say about death? Whose user pages? Sincerely, Mattisse 02:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC) Answer:User:Dattat's user page. --BostonMA ^talk 03:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is how I learned about Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shravak. (Makes no sense.) What about death? (Or is that an improper question to ask?) Sincerely, Mattisse

Look at your email. It is not an improper question to ask, but it is perhaps not appropriate for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've often noticed that behavior. It's the sort of thing WP:POINT says not to do. --BostonMA ^talk 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Confusion

(from my talk page --BostonMA ^talk) Your last arbitration edit, I wondering why you disregarded Pigman's comment. To me that is an important factor, as Pigman clearly states. [4] Sincerely, Mattisse 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rosencomet received some bad advice and some bad examples, but now seems to be trying to work with the community. I don't see any benefit in keeping that fire going. I am actually somewhat disappointed that focus contiues to revolve around rosencomet. If there is a potential for continuing conflict, I think it comes more from the parties to the arbitration who previously advised Rosencomet. As always, take my opinions with whatever salt required. --BostonMA ^talk 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 ::Look at your email.  It is not an improper question to ask, but it is perhaps not appropriate for Wikipedia.  Sincerely, --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]</sup></font> 03:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 ::Yes, I've often noticed that behavior.  It's the sort of thing [[WP:POINT]] says not to do.  --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]</sup></font> 21:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
+== Re: Confusion ==
+(from my talk page --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]</sup></font>)
+Your last arbitration edit, I wondering why you disregarded Pigman's comment. To me that is an important factor, as Pigman clearly states.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood/Evidence&curid=8618069&diff=96974898&oldid=96964435]
+Sincerely,  [[User:Mattisse|Mattisse]] 19:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
+:I think Rosencomet received some bad advice and some bad examples, but  now seems to be trying to work with the community.  I don't see any benefit in keeping that fire going.  I am actually somewhat disappointed that focus contiues to revolve around rosencomet.  If there is a potential for continuing conflict, I think it comes more from the parties to the arbitration who previously advised Rosencomet.  As always, take my opinions with whatever salt required.  --[[User:BostonMA|BostonMA]] <font color = "blue"><sup>[[User talk:BostonMA|talk]]</sup></font> 19:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)