User talk:Mattisse

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

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 24

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.

Talk:Shanhua Temple

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Talk:Shanhua Temple.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm a Wikistalker

I saw you were reviewing my article, which made me very glad. :) But then a review never appeared, and it made me very sad. :( I sat around for a few hours editing random pages and waiting for a review to appear. But it never did. Woe is me! Shii (tock) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which article is yours? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Paging you to Talk:Living River Siam, just a few things left Shii (tock) 22:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Ping me when you are done. —mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have any objection to my responses (2) and (1) then I'm pretty much done. Thanks for your help! Shii (tock) 23:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

disingenuous

..is a fightin' word. Has that ad hominem kinda odor... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think someone is stalking me. That was one, sole, edit to an article that was not at FAR. So what was the point of the comment? The discussion is about articles at FAR. So what did that one edit prove? You tell me. —mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if it means anything or not. And this may sound shocking, but I doubt it matters. First of all, a long time ago I myself used to comb through peoples' contribs looking for evidence when I disagreed with them. I don't do it now, but only because I've become very very lazy, or perhaps thge laziness is actually residue from my period of burnout. Either way, I don't do it now, but I think it's common and even normal (though perhaps a bit confrontational, in some contexts). Secondly, if I could summarize absolutely everything that I have ever said to you about on-wiki interactions, it would be this: "Learn not to give a crap." Let it go. Water of a duck's back. It washes off. And soon. I learned this lesson out of context... many years ago a mother of several children told me she'd been (very literally) pooped and peed on more than a few times. I said "Wow, that's disgusting". She said, "You know, one thing I've learned after years of being a mother — poop just washes off." :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't image stalking someone. And I am surprised you did it. Recently someone told me to post on an article talk page, but when I refused to do it, retribution followed, nonetheless, when that person insisted on posting on my behalf. Retribution not only on my talk page, but under my posts on the talk pages of others not even involved! Some editors clearly have nothing else to do but follow me around! This place is really an interpersonal circus; the encyclopedia is just an excuse for everyone to ego bash and post sweet nothings on favorite other's pages. You are one of the few editors I respect, and whose view I value, despite what I am saying here. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! If you respect me, then you are one of the few who do! I'm sorta two-dimensional—sometimes I channel User:Geometry guy, but more often than not I represent a faint, faded echo of the legend that is User:Malleus Fatuorum. ;-) But back to the point... ummm... I'm not sure my limited attention span enables me to follow that whole retribution anecdote, but.... uh... I dunno. If someone came at my door calling me an idiot, I'd mention WP:DENY then very studiously ignore him or her. And continue to do so, no matter what.... I get very very involved and excited in debates sometimes, but I am almost always involved in the topic rather than the person. With extremely few exceptions. I'm not perfect. yet. But anyhow. WP:DENY. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, in the (I hope unlikely) event that you are actually implying that I stalked you to James Joyce, I hope that your mentors will step in and remind you of 1) the terms of your ArbCom, 2) how to find articestats on that article where you can review my long history with that article, and 3) how to review the articlehistory and diffs to see just how long I've had it watchlisted (Dec 2006 FYI). Whether at FAR or not, I thought it to be unnecessary tagging of an FA, of which I follow quite a few. It was an example of the kinds of issues being discussed at FAR; please refrain from personalizing issues, and when you make statements about things like stalking, please consider reviewing the history of the article first, lest you breach AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)t

eh, we're discussing. let's not butt heads.... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that SandyGeorgia must remove my perfectly legitimate post to her page. Unnecessarily POINTy, in my opinion. —mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your page IS a little more public than a confessional, methinks! Judging from events!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) maybe it was pointy, I dunno, but also yawn-worthy. I am so used to folks getting irritated at each other on-wiki that.. it kinda... washes off... so...maybe... it.. should... wash off... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it? In real life this quality of mine made me a lot of money but here it is merely a curiosity that I garner so much attention. —mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent, free the indentured colons of Wikipedia) <shrug> Wikipedia is its own weird world. Just shrug it off. Or rather, shrug the people off. I actually wish I could shrug off the issues; as time goes on, I'm becoming more apathetic.... Ling.Nut (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I am becoming more apathetic also. I have no real interest here anymore. There is nothing I care about. That is a loss, but so be it. I figure it happens to everyone, as the "lifespan" here seems to be around three years. —mattisse (Talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would like to actually edit articles more. I may do so. I enjoy making awards and images, though it is very, very time-consuming. I am considering putting the "does not want to be an admin" ubox back on my bio page though. Blech. Argue this, argue that, blah blah blah. I weary myself nearly as much as others weary me. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the way to go. Nothing good comes from the grunt work, except abuse. Writing articles is the fun. And if I do anything more here, that will be it. P.S. Never trust anyone who does a lot of sighing. (I know that from real life.) —mattisse (Talk)

What can i say? I love the concept of Wikipedia. It's the reality that sorta has a mildly unpleasant odor. But then again, that describes most (but not all) of reality. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the reviewing/copy editing business that has the "unpleasant order" you describe. The article writing is enjoyable. I think I will get out of the grunt work business, stop worring abot the "quality" of wikipedia, and just do my own thing writing articles thaat I feel like doing, without trying to grab "stars" and "awards". That is the only chance I see of regaining any pleasure and escaping the uglines. —mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Ugh, too many colons.) Er, I am still looking for the fabled balance that leads to happiness. Article work often involves flying solo, which can get lonely after a while... But if content review is the locus of most of your unhappiness, then perhaps article work is the way to go. Prob is, content review involves much more interaction with others. Interaction with others is where we all wanna find that Cheers-like atmosphere. So perhaps (I think) the best way to go may be to find a Wikiproject in an interesting area & that has some active & friendly members, make friends with the latter and do content work in collaboration with them. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wise words Ling.Nut. I'd have left wikipedia some time ago without the help and support of the WP:GM project. Even then, as you say, article work can be a pretty lonely furrow to plough, so I think it's all about getting the balance right between doing what you want to do and helping others. My feeling is that Mattisse sometimes hasn't been selfish enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You've spent a lot of time reviewing/copyediting Mattisse, perhaps too much relative to spending time on those topics that genuinely interest you. Perhaps you're just feeling the effects of that imbalance right now. Reviewing in particular is pretty thankless, and there's no real sense of achievement, no matter how well you do it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Ling.Nut and Malleus have just said. Do what you enjoy doing rather than what you feel you ought to be doing. Associate with people who share your interests or whose company you find enjoyable for personal reasons, and scrforget the politics. "My feeling is that Mattisse sometimes hasn't been selfish enough" looks like a very good diagnosis. --Philcha (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that. When trying to put Wikipedia to rights got too tedious around the start of this year I turned to Wikisloth and took the Darwin anniversary opportunity to have fun writing a few minor articles, one of which turned out rather better than expected. Your help with the struggle to get that whimsy through FAC is hugely appreciated, hence the award below. However, the same goes for you: it's easy to get sucked into "doing your duty", but that's only worth doing if you find it rewarding. Fun comes first! . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is all very well, but can anyone honestly say that for their next GAN, they don't wish Mattisse was there to review it? (just speaking up for those of us that would feel the lack of such great reviewers!)YobMod 00:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I fear that GA standards are too low. But you are very kind. Unfortunately, Ga supports the propagation of psychological inventions publicized by one man. The article in question is a fork at best. But, hey, anything on pop culture gets a free pass. I give up on the task of giving psychiatry/psychology any credibility on Wikipedia. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I could hardly disagree with you more Mattisse; all psychological/psychiatric theories (yes, I do understand the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists) are the work of one man, like my all-time favourite cognitive dissonance. How many men were involved in the development of transactional analysis? How many men was Freud, Jung, or Adler? GA standards are neither "too low" nor too high, they simply represent a pragmatic attempt to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. Pragmatism has its limits, which are far short of perfection, admittedly.--Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. So goes my faith in humankind and in GA. Feel free and have at it. Wreck what you will. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, I should withdraw my article, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, which has been waiting a month at GAN, from it because it is worthless?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Another political article by you! Actually, I had not noticed it as I am basically getting out of the business of reviewing GA articles. I hope you are not going to guilt-trip me into doing it. You know I am already suspicious of you, as I suspect you are either 21 or 67 years old and I cannot tell which. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we worry too much about other people's stuff. nvm, I don't think quality control in Wikipedia is very relevant atm or in the near future, as regards to articles or other stuff like flagrant POV pushing. If I get banned or fired, too bad, I'm not here to toe the line and get a 100% approval rating for being irrelevant. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. What does "nvm" and "atm" mean? I am 100% behind your mode of operation. —mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

nvm="never mind"; atm="at the moment". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm 46. (don't be fooled by my concert photos). This one was started before the Senate article, but has been slower to turn out. I wasn't hoping to get you to do it, but was hoping one of the other readers of your page would get interested. It is the final segment in my Nixon series, though I may reconsider on Helen Douglas once the new bio of her comes out in November. Khrushchev is next. Just have to get up the energy to sit down to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha 46, I would have guessed that age next, except maybe 38 instead (fooled by your concert photos). Do you promise that this is the final of your Nixon series? —mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, maybe Douglas, but that has to await the new book. Really, there isn't anything more to write about. It is his early career that interests me. There isn't enough material about his '48 campaign to do a FA about, maybe enough for a short GA, but aside from those two, I don't have anything more to say about Nixon. Besides, Khrushchev is going to be a difficult article, then I have promised Ssilvers to improve Ruddigore.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Equivocating already? Besides, I am finding Khrushchev quite interesting. Had a discussion with my brother who has a very poor view of Khrushchev. But he did point out, contrary to his POV, that Castro and Khrushchev got along very well. Like minds in many ways. —mattisse (Talk) 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I've resumed work on Khrushchev, though I will have a military history buff look over the Great Patriotic War section when I've done with it. Ruddigore will be part of the G&S Wikiproject (I'm not a member of any wikiproject), and the timing of bringing it to FAC will depend on how people are doing with others of the Savoy Operas (at one time I was interested in G&S though it has probably been 15 years since I have been to one).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Fertilisation of Orchids Award
		Thanks ever so much for slogging away to bring a whimsical sketch up to FA standard. Remember to have fun! dave souza, talk 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a pleasure to work on that article. There are few articles I have enjoyed as much. Also, you are a great model for how to compromise when that is for the good of the article but also to stand firm when needed to retain its beauty and spirit. —mattisse (Talk) 12:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it overall! As it happens, I don't want to pester you or distract you from having fun, and hesitated to mention this, but I've been playing in my sandbox and have now put Explanation of the mechanism – suggestion up for discussion at the article talk page. It gives a bit more detail, but risks getting too technical. Anyway, don't worry about it, will think it over cautiously before doing anything. . dave souza, talk 12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I only want to make changes that genuinely clarify the article, and if in doubt will leave it alone. As you suggest, the exercise may come in useful in trying to improve other articles which I find pretty impenetrable, but then I'm not an expert about botany. If you could leave Coral Reefs aside for a while, it needs a going over to improve the secondary sources. I've obtained Charles Darwin, Geologist by Sandra Herbert, but haven't had much time to read it yet. So, my aim is to work more on that article soon, but not yet. Perhaps I should remove it from the GA queue. . dave souza, talk 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon! Hamiltonstone has started the GAR, so will drop other things and try to use the new source as appropriate to help respond to questions. Any further comments or questions, such as things that need explained, will be welcome. Thanks again for your help, dave souza, talk 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, a review will be useful and I can try to help out. I was looking at it more from the perspective of a potential FA. Is that your ultimate goal? —mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it through GA, all rather sudden! Yes, guess duty to the year of our Darwin makes it worth going for FA, will try to catch up with my reading over the next week, see if there's anything I want to review and then put it forward. Any assistance greatly welcomed! dave souza, talk 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashokan Edicts (Delhi)

Hi! Matisse,

It is quite some time since I requested you for help, after the Chitradurga Fort article was successfully nominated by you on DYK. I have another request for you to please see this history related article User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Ashokan Edicts (Delhi) for nomination on DYK, if you find it interesting. You are free to edit it as necessary to remove any oddities or close paraphrasing. Also, can I post the article Chitradurga Fort for GA upgrade? Thanks. --Nvvchar (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Curry

Hello Mattisse. With regard to this edit on the Tamil language article, the dictionary does actually say the word is from Tamil or from a cognate word in another Dravidian language. The online interface to their dictionary only displays the first entry (a verb) by default - you need to click through to the second entry. I've therefore taken out your tag - I hope this is OK. Please feel free to re-insert it if I misunderstood your point. -- Arvind (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will take your word for it, though I did search around to make sure it wasn't there. But if you say so, ok. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to the OED, which is quite unambiguous. I hope that's better. --Arvind (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sz deadlink

Hi Matisse, I just saw that you added a deadlink marker to the NICE guidelines webpage on the schizophrenia article. I did a little poking around, and it looks like the guidelines were updated in February, 2009, but when I try to click on the links, the pdf causes my computer to freeze up. The non-pdf part of the page is here: [1] and I think the one that we want is the NICE guidelines updated here: [2] but since I can't make the pdf work, I can't actually read it over to verify that this update hasn't changed the content in such a way that this is no longer a valid reference. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't get the pdf to open either. It is just an empty link. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you have to click one more link beyond that... on that page, it only gives you the link to the pdf and tells you to make sure you have acrobat. Here's the link directly to the pdf: [3]. On my computer, it gets about halfway through downloading and then hangs, so don't click that link if you're in the middle of something important(!). Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That link is an empty link for me. It returns a blank page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... and the other one too? Curiouser and curiouser. Edhubbard (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This one is not blank: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG82 But that is the one you wanted to verify the text of, right? By looking at the pdf? This one is blank: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG82FullGuideline.pdf —mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the second one, with the pdf in the title is the one that keeps hanging for me. It opens part way, and then stops. You might be having a version of the same problem I am, but even worse. I can see that it's not completely blank when I try to open it, but it won't open all the way... what version of Acrobat do you have? I have Reader 8. In any case, NICE needs to make these things more readable. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the plug in for Firefox 3.0.13. It updates automatically so I am sure it is Reader 8. I don't normally have any problems opening a pdf. —mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, so I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 normally, but based on your comment, I just tried it with IE (I hate to do that!) and it seems to work in IE. So, perhaps this is a compatibility issue with Firefox that NICE hasn't tested? Not nice NICE. Can you let me know if it works for you? I'm going to start looking to see if the pdf still contains the relevant info. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I have not upgraded to Firefox 3.5 is that I am concerned that some of my add-ons (upon which I depend) won't work. Have you had any trouble? I tried the link in my IE 8 (I believe) and it is still a blank page. Don't know what to think. —mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 normally, but based on your comment, I just tried it with IE (I hate to do that!) and it seems to work in IE. So, perhaps this is a compatibility issue with Firefox that NICE hasn't tested? Not nice NICE. Can you let me know if it works for you? I'm going to start looking to see if the pdf still contains the relevant info. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I have not upgraded to Firefox 3.5 is that I am concerned that some of my add-ons (upon which I depend) won't work. Have you had any trouble? I tried the link in my IE 8 (I believe) and it is still a blank page. Don't know what to think. —mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was an early adopter for FF 3.5, and it did break a couple of things (google gears being the most notable for me) but they're up to 3.5.2 now and they seem to have worked that out. So, for most things FF 3.5 seems pretty good now. But, if you have specific add-ons, I wouldn't want to say something that wouldn't be true for that add-on.

As for this crazy pdf, I am reading it over, and they do seem to have changed some things from the old guidelines. Relevant to first-line care (since that was the first place you noted the deadlink), they say this:

6.10 From evidence to recommendations.

In the previous guideline (which incorporated the recommendations from the NICE technology appraisal of second-generation antipsychotics, NICE, 2002), in some situations, SGAs were recommended as first-line treatment, primarily because they were thought to carry a lower potential risk of EPS. However, evidence from the updated systematic reviews of clinical evidence presented in this chapter, particularly with regard to other adverse effects such as metabolic disturbance, together with new evidence from effectiveness (pragmatic) trials suggest that choosing the most appropriate drug and formulation for an individual may be more important than the drug group." (p. 130).

So, it seems that some things might have changed with the addition of new evidence, and it might be worth figuring out how to get this new information incorporated into the article, or at least to temper conclusions that have been superseded by new evidence. I'll take a look through this thing, but it's 399 pages long, and comes in at 3.16 MB, so a sizeable document. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is rather vague and disheartening. It is rather like antidepressants. The end of the road seems to have been reached there and we are in need a new concept, or to reach back further in the causal chain to wherever neurotransmitters arise, instead of influencing them directly. —mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we're reaching a sort of plateau with what the meds can currently do. My fiancee is a sz researcher (post-doc with Stephan Heckers at Vanderbilt Psychiatry [4]) and one of the things that seems to be the wave of the future is early detection and a sort of "pre-habilitation", even prior to the first episode, since after even a single episode, patients rarely, if ever, attain their pre-morbid state. So, early markers, endophenotypes, etc, etc are becoming the hot topics, for example at SOBP. Of course, this is all complicated by the fact that the genetics people have turned up at least a dozen genes. I did see part of a great symposium at SFN about a year and a half ago where they talked about how the genes link up to pathways, and there might be some specific targets there. So, I'm optimistic about the long-term future, but in the short-term, I agree that this line of treatment is reaching the limits of where we can hope to go... of course, this is still better than just 100 years ago. Edhubbard (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Long-term optimism yes. But having received the Schizophrenia Bulletin since the 1970s I think perhaps that will be in the twilight of my lifetime, if then. —mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Expert syndrome?

Hi, Mattisse. I think your comments at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 and the responses they received may be an example of the difficulties experts in a subject experience at WP. The upside is your thorough knowledge of the subject area, but one of the downsides is excessive concentration on the way in which experts analyse the topic, when there may be other ways of looking at it - a good example of this might be Jesus, about whom theologians, textual critics and historians of 1st century Judea would all adopt very different perspectives. Münchausen by Internet may not deserve its own entry in DSM, since (from the point of this very non-expert) it looks like the core behaviours and causes are standard Münchausen's. However the way in which it seems to play out on the Internet appears to be distinctive and to have caught some attention, at least for a while. I've added my name to the list of willing reviewers if it's re-nominated, and if I wind up reviewing the article and not crushed in the January-sales rush, I hope I could ask your advice on the technical aspects. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to a popular culture article being written that does not mislead people into thinking it is a medical diagnosis. Then the article should follow the standard polices/guidelines regarding WP:V and WP:OR. Supporting WP:RS should be found for the term, so that Wikipedia is not pushing one man's theory. Articles on the general culture of the internet should not be used by the article's editor to put together the editor's view of how Münchausen by Internet operates per WP:SYN. The very fact Münchausen by Internet is capitalized as it is, instead of Münchausen by internet as standard terminology for diagnoses dictates, shows it is not a diagnostic term commonly used in the field. Write it as a pop culture article and drop the medical/scientific pretensions, unless support for this angle can be found. And drop the OR speculations and enhancements.

Münchausen by Internet is a term used to classify behavior patterns that mirror elements of factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy expressed primarily through internet communications such as chat rooms, message boards, and Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

Does Feldman mention message boards, IRC etc.? He is concerned about on-line support groups for health issues only.[5] I don't think Feldman is into the other behaviors mentioned farther down, such as stalking. Stalking has little to do with the motivations behind Factitious disorders and therefore, by analogy, presumably behind Münchausen by Internet. The editor has interjected OR and this must be carefully checked. Articles that mention problems that "sound" like they are talking about Münchausen by Internet but do not mention the "diagnosis" of Münchausen by Internet should not be used to support the article editor's thesis that these are the same. The article is OR the way it is written now. You need someone besides Feldman validating the term, not just someone mentioning Feldman and his term. Wikipedia will become a major vehicle to push Feldman and his term.[6] If you check this article as carefully as you checked the article by Malleus you reviewed, you should have no problem, and make sure the statements are supported with no weasel words. Who uses this term to "classify behaviors", for what purpose and under what conditions? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom mentors, is this the direction you envisioned your task going? I did not.

Munchausen by Internet will not be re-nominated for GA, at least not by me. That is unfortunate, but it is a simple issue of economics: it is not worth it to deal with Mattisse's irrelevant accusations, tangential arguments, and bizarre claims. Had Mattisse access to the sources, I hope that 99% of her questions and complaints would be answered. Anyone who wants copies of the sources, email me and I'll attach them to a reply.

You defer to her as an expert, Philcha, after she exhibits an astonishing misunderstanding of GA criteria in the GAR. Such gentleness she receives from her trusted friends. If only we could all treat each other that way. If only true experts in the field could be as understanding and nurturing where articles need to be improved. Someone who is so easily influenced or impressed with a user that has very recently displayed some alarming confusion should not be performing a GA review. Malleus passed it to Ling.Nut, who passed it to Philcha. GA renomination, in this climate, is not a wise decision, despite my confidence that the article--needing improvements though it may--meets basic GA criteria.

As ever, I will remain interested in improving the article. I am wholly disinterested in another round of argument and drama with Mattisse. GA process fail. ArbCom fail. Mattisse win. Everyone goes home happy. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mon3, I am merely concerned about the encyclopedia. It is not for us to write articles on novel topics that are "similar to the discovery of a new organism", as you say you are doing. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not for the synthesis of new information. I suggest you recast the article per Malleus's comments on the article talk page and clear up what he called the article's "identity crisis." Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pass anything on to anyone. What I said was that if the article was renominated at GAN and not picked up quickly then I would undertake to do the review. It's my belief from my own experience that Philcha would do a fine job, very likely better than I would have done, and the article would be significantly improved in the the process, so it would be disappointing if it were not renominated. Re your general comments, I think the tenor of the whole discussion surrounding this review started off badly because of the poor decision made by the original reviewer to (effectively) quickfail the article, and has gradually become less and less helpful. I broadly agree with the position that Mattisse has espoused, although I do regret thst she was unable to strike a less gladiatorial tone. The poor experiences some others of us have had with that reviewer earlier also didn't help in producing a more collegial atmosphere, and I'm perhaps as much to blame as anyone for that. Perhaps one day I'll be perfect, but I've still got a ways to go. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours since I offered to send anyone interested the sources cited in the article through email. Although Philcha, Ling.Nut, Mattisse, and Malleus have been active during that time, no one has taken me up on it, especially Mattisse. Yes, Mattisse, Feldman does mention IRC, message boards, and chat rooms. He actually employs the term "Usenet boards" but someone else thought that was dated when I put that in the article and changed it. Why would you believe me here, when you certainly do not believe the article? Wouldn't having the sources answer your questions?

I don't know how to express my disappointment in this ArbCom mentor process. It seems I would basically have to behave like Mattisse to get you folks to do your jobs. Instead, I disengage, remark only about content, refuse to rise to the accusations that I'm synthesizing information and conducting original research, while Mattisse defends an indefensible and astonishingly incompetent GA review. Seriously, is decency so foreign to Wikipedia? I am refusing to renominate the GA, not because I don't think the article does not meet the criteria, but because of the stress and headache I will go through while she rambles on, displaying a complete lack of understanding for core Wikipedia policies. I'm seriously considering abandoning review processes altogether, which is unfortunate because I really would like the articles I write to be the best they can be. Is your desire to be able to end your posts with winky-faces what compels you to be impotent? Do I have to bring out more effective language and say that Mattisse is full of neurotic bullshit, and scream like a mentally imbalanced 14-year-old? Or is this the honest to God best you folks can do? --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POT evidently applies, I suggest that you strike these aggressive and uncivil assertions. A bit more patience and a suitable plea to uninvolved editors is more likely to be succeed than this evidently unproductive name-calling. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So yes, it is that sort of language that earns attention. Those who wish to exist outside of this culture are unto themselves, apparently. Someone who creates a melodramatic scene merely hinted at by my previous post makes people uncomfortable, but the respectful decency I employ on a regular basis gives others the impression that things are swell. Mattisse's behavior, obviously, plays no part in this which I find perverse. Conflict forces value reassessment, as is illustrated in many articles on this website, some of which I have written. My passivity and respectfulness has not accomplished that. I am challenging this wiki-culture that follows such a status-quo. I heartily dislike using hurtful language, but it is the equivalent to laying down in front of the Food and Drug Administration in a public die-in to get arrested in front of the media. If I have to start peppering my posts with "fuck" and start ranting about conspiracy, might that inspire action as well? How about if her mentors start addressing her behavior so articles can be improved? --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I never saw your posts about sending sources etc. I un-volunteered my help 'cause I'm busy and 'cause Philcha would do as well or better than i could. But I re-volunteer. Go ahead and send me those sources, if you want, although I believe there is no need to do so, because I believe your contributions are completely in order and above reproach. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The ArbCom mentor]/adviser process is working well, from my point of view, and over time I have received honest and timely advice from my advisers. Regarding your article, I have given my opinion at GAR and on the article talk page (where I understood Geometry guy to say comments should go), which I am allowed to do. You are free to ignore my comments, or to argue against them on the article talk page. It is unclear what you are expecting of me now. I never indicated any interest in rewriting the article or in reviewing it for a second GAN. Perhaps those who offered to review your article, should you renominate it, will be interested in your materials. I agree the article would emerge improved from a renomination should Philcha or Malleus do the review. If you want to refuse to renominate the article, then that is up to you. I do ask that you stop repeatedly posting disparaging remarks about me and my mentoring/advising process on my talk page. Regarding, —mattisse (Talk) 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I think it's time to put this incident behind you - as I've noticed to-day, you have some new interests that I hope will give you more enjoyment.--Philcha (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS I think that applies to everyone else too. --Philcha (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have had new interests all along and would prefer to have this matter dropped. —mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• You have expressed interest in leaving this behind. I think it would help right now. Please read. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have left it behind. I have not engaged further in the matter. This is not something I am thinking about anymore and have moved on to other things. So I would appreciate your dropping the matter also. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Halofolliculina corallasia

Hi, Mattisse. I start work on a "new" phylum knowing nothing about it, it's what all the best editors do :-) Re DYK, do you already have a hook in mind? I usually start work on a new subject by doing a search and listing prominsing sources at the article's Talk page (did I mention I know nothing?), so I'll start now. I can really only give this the week or so it will take to get it ready for DYK, as I have to finish Bryozoa before I forget how these work (incidentally, I know nothing), get Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets through GA review (I hope!) and finish GA reviews I'm doing on 4 articles. --Philcha (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, could you not have picked a more obscure subject? Scientists appear to know less than the general public realise about biology - as I've realised when working on Annelida (!) and Bryozoa, and now about a protozoan species. All the sources about Halofolliculina corallasia are by various combinations of under 10 researchers mostly in the same journal, and focus on the impact on corals (possibly 2 factions, one calling the disease Skeletal Eroding Band and the other "Caribbean ciliate infection"), so we have to avoid to straying into Skeletal Eroding Band's territory. What are your ambitions for this article? I dont' think there's a GA's worth of sources to provide adequate coverage, and we'd have to be very careful about WP:SYN and other nasty diseases. I can knock out a patchy article using what sources I've found, and see if that provides enough for you to work up a DYK hook. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Your original message about this said, "I am very interested in coral". If you want to work on coral-related articles, it might be good to drill down from Cnidaria, which provides basic info and refs about corals. Or you could approach the subject via reef ecosystems, which would give you the opportunity to find a wider range of related subjects to work on, e.g. ecosystems, conservation, economic aspects, and all the types of organism that coral reefs support. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a GA or anything. I'm just not interested in that. I like starting little articles that others eventually expand (and also it was a red link that I came across). This one is interesting because scientists, being focused now on the critical importance of coral reefs, are looking into what is destroying them and discovering how much they do not know. These now obscure topics (specific agents that infect and kill coral) are just now being detected and will become important in the future. I don't have your thoroughness. I am looking for a simple little article that explains a few points. I can't read lengthy, detailed articles, never mind writing them! (I copy edit long ones under duress, the Fertilisation of Orchids being the pleasurable exception). Halofolliculina corallasia only has to be over 1500 characters for a DYK and make some clear, understandable statements. My attention span is fractured lately. I can learn the coral and coral reef vocabulary slowly by dipping my toe into small, circumscribed articles. I am considering books on coral to acquire. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I hope I haven't over-expanded Halofolliculina corallasia then :-) However the research for this convinced me that coral diseases are a growth area and this is a good time for you get interested.

Now it's your turn - let me know when you've thought of a DYK hook. --Philcha (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointed out why merge would be premature at this stage. I also posted to Wetman, who put the banner on Halofolliculina corallasia, that he needs to get the procedure right for a merge. Then I saw that you'd tried to correct his error, but your attempt omitted something - where the discussion should be. I suggest you remove your banner from Skeletal Eroding Band and let Wetman get it right.

Meanwhile I'll rationalise the structure of both articles. --Philcha (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-structure done, I think it makes it clear that the articles have a different focus. --Philcha (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not put the merge banner on Skeletal Eroding Band [7]. Wetman did. So I don't think I should unilaterally remove it. I did comment on the discussion page. Also, now there are hook problems. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think the re-structure has invalidated the DYK hook? I've just looked at some comments at Template_talk:Did_you_know and it's all be about wording, not about whether it's valid. Halofolliculina corallasia still says it'sthe first known coral-killing protozoan or eucaryote. --Philcha (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because where it is sourced in the article, it reads like it is SEB and not Halofolliculina corallasia that is both a protozoa and a eukaryote. Maybe it just needs rewording. It would be best if the hook can be sourced in the lead for DYK. It is best for DYK that the hook be very clear, easy to find, and be sourced directly. Regarding the merge tags, I did not put either one there. Is it all right to remove them, do you think? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I know Wetman put the tag on Halofolliculina_corallasia but I thought you put it on Skeletal Eroding Band - perhaps I misread the history. Anyway he hasn't centralised the discussion, i.e. neither tag links to the Talk page of the other article, so right now it's improper procedure

Re the support for DYK, is this better? --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you like the latest hook idea. Long Shrift did the real work, I just buffed it up a bit. We should thank (?)him if it runs. --Philcha (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would I put a merge tag on either article? You did misread. I do like the new alt hook. Re: "However, the relationship between the presence of ciliates and coral mortality has not yet been firmly established."A mechanism of transmission and factors affecting coral susceptibility to Halofolliculina sp. infection

Re ""However, the relationship between the presence of ciliates and coral mortality ...", my Talk page - I'm losing my sense of direction. --Philcha (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Geology of the Grand Canyon area

Thanks for your edits! :) --mav (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. There is a lot of good information in the reference articles that are already linked to the article, maybe all that you need. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Okeanos Explorer

On August 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Okeanos Explorer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good article etiquette

Can you answer my question about good article etiquette [8]? Thatcher 00:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have answered your question![9] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but further... Thatcher 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Have answered on GAN talk page (with typos).[10] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

I'm up to the death of Stalin. I know I'll have to go back and trim, but almost any article on a world leader is huge. Now comes the hard part, all the stuff about him in power.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some of it can be spun off into sub articles. Too much detail becomes unwieldy and the overall picture is lost in the subplots that don't have a large impact on the outcome. For example, it is very complex after Stalin died—how Khrushchev consolidated his power. But should all the moves be in this article? —mattisse (Talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll concentrate on doing it lightly, and if necessary spin it off into at least short articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Whitepox disease.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Whitepox disease.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• See: "White pox disease is characterized by white circular lesions on the surface of infected colonies (Photo: Dr. A. Bruckner, NOAA)"white pox disease A. Bruckner is an employee of NOAA. It says so right on the photo. —mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks. Okay, removing. Bear in mind that the photograph that provides his affiliation is hosted on a different page, but not on the source for the image in question. In future you can avoid this type of confusion by providing both links as sources with your upload. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Living River Siam

Hey there :) When you pass a GAN, don't forget to replace {{GA nominee}} with {{GA}}, and replace the nomination date with the current date and time. The | subtopic = parameter doesn't work either, and has to be replaced with | topic = .

Keep up the good work, by the way. You've been doing an impressive amount of content editing lately. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Halofolliculina corallasia

The bot screwed up; your hook will actually appear in about 5 hours. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Halofolliculina corallasia

On August 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Halofolliculina corallasia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

California's 12th congressional district election, 1946

Would you mind going through this article? Tony's expressed some concerns on the FAC page, which speak for themselves, and which are not unreasonable. I think it is really a question of writing style. An article written by one person is going to exhibit that one person's writing quirks, which we've discussed. Worth it to get Nixon off the agenda. No need to rush, I don't expect you to be on call to clean up my messes. Thanks for what you can do though.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Later today. —mattisse (Talk) 12:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I am understanding part of his objection, though he didn't say it outright: I try to make sentences work too hard. I'm going through, cutting up sentences. Possibly I also use word choices and placement to try to convey subtleties that don't always come across, but that's harder to work on. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi Mattisse. I see you are busy as usual. I'm here to ask for your assistance, but while I'm here I'll let you know that I have left Medway Council. I'm going back into teaching. So my Medway Council email will no longer be operational. My home one is still active though.

Anyway - I responded to a request to do a GA review on History of Sesame Street. It's gone well - it's a decent article. But I have a few quibbles:

1. The tone and detail of the first paragraph of the lead, and the Beginnings section I feel may be too anecdotal and trivial, and so not pass 3 (b) (this would also mean not passing 1 (a) and (b)).
2. The article relies heavily on 3 or 4 books which are not available online. When earlier checking out two online sources the sources did not support what had been written in the article - this has now been corrected in one case, and switched to one of the off-line sources in the other. In cases like this I tend to get hold of one of the books to check it out - but the nominator is in a hurry. What is your view? There is the sense that if somebody later finds the article is not accurate to the sources the article can be delisted. And, as it stands, it complies with GA criteria (I think!).
3. The last quibble is to do with broad coverage. The main article has a Sesame_Street#Broadcast_history section. I wonder if the History article should have the same; and if it should cover more than just the history of SS in America - that there should be greater detail on SS around the world, and SS in different presentation formats. The nominator feels that the article is fine as it is. I couldn't find any examples of other History of TV Show articles with which to compare.

I'd appreciate you taking a look. Thanks SilkTork *^YES! 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the lead starts off too detailed and anecdotal. I think the "dinner party" and the husband's name etc. is trivial weighted against the rest of the article content. I too am uncomfortable when no facts are able to be checked. One of the books used most in the article, is online and probably contributes to the tone in the article you dislike.[11] The book is written very much from "Joan's" point of view and is emotional in tone rather than scholarly. Several of the books are "searchable" at amazon.com, if you wanted to fact check certain items.

I agree that it should have a {{global}} view and not just U.S.

As far as having a "broadcast history" section, I don't know as it is a little unclear what this article aims to cover. I notice that in the Sesame Street article, History of Sesame Street is listed as the main article under the heading Beginnings. So it is not meant to cover more than the beginnings? A little confusing why this article exists independently.

Also, who were the "team of producers" directors and other involved people, and how much was Joan involved after the its creation and the beginning? The article seems rather focused on Joan, who (although important) is not responsible for 40+ years of history. What is the focus of this article? It seems unbalanced if it is meant to cover the "history" of Sesame Street. —mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 22:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

{{help}} Suddenly I can no longer edit as I have been blocked for no reason. I do not understand what has happened. —mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the log, you have not been blocked. I don't know why you can't edit - try {{adminhelp}} maybe? Intelligentsium 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can I not edit? My block log shows no blocks. I am confused. —mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You may have been autoblocked. Please follow the directions at Template:Autoblock. --Mysdaao ^talk 01:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. If you use IRC, I'll be able to help you there, otherwise you can email me the block info. This is the "To request unblocking" box in the "Additional information" section of the block message. Special:Emailuser/Prodego. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Mattisse (block log • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

---

IP address: 72.184.7.177 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock • checkuser (log))
Block ID: #1555249 (BlockList • unblock)
Blocking admin: Jake Wartenberg (talk • blocks)
Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "CallMeNow". The reason given for CallMeNow's block is: "harrasment spa".

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Mattisse}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=Jake Wartenberg | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "CallMeNow". The reason given for CallMeNow's block is: "harrasment spa".</nowiki> | 3=72.184.7.177 | 4=1555249 | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=72.184.7.177 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "CallMeNow". The reason given for CallMeNow's block is: "harrasment spa".</nowiki> | 3=Jake Wartenberg | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=72.184.7.177 | 2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "CallMeNow". The reason given for CallMeNow's block is: "harrasment spa".</nowiki> | 3=Jake Wartenberg | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

Blocked directly for two weeks

I have blocked your account from editing for a period of two weeks for abusive sockpuppetry. CheckUser evidence shows that CallMeNow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Big Toxic Personality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and VividMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are all being operated by the owner of this account.

I have emailed the ArbCom mailing list with the technical data relating to this case.

If you wish to contest this block, you may do so by placing {{unblock|reason}} below this notice. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)