User talk:Mattisse

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

Category:Child sexual abuse

I was wondering why you took it out of Category:Child abuse and Category:Sexual abuse, and added Category:Sex crimes. It seems to me that the previous arrangment is more in keeping with WP:CAT. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not understanding what you are asking. I was working with the parent category Category:Sex crimes which does not include Category:Child abuse. The goal was to remove as many redundancies of the terms in the same category as possible and remove inappropriate categories. For example, the goal was not to lump the sex offenders in the same of category of Category:Child sexual abuse. In order to avoid having Category:Child sexual abuse appear as it did when you view the over all Category:Sex crimes - no categories mentioned more than once, no categories repeated by being hidden under another less appropriate categories, like American sex abusers under child sex abuse, I made the changes I did. As an example, previously you did not see American sex abusers unless you clicked Child sex abuse, while there was a whole other Category of Sex abusers that did not include American sex abusers. At least, that is my memory of the rationale. The important issue is that when you go to Category:Child abuse the entries are under the correct subcategories and nothing is misplaced. Hope I have explained myself correctly. Yesterday when I looked at Category:Sex crimes (and made one last change is was the best I have seen it. Also, Child abuse in general is not considered Child sex abuse and should not appear in Category:Sex crimes. Perhaps you could be more specific, if I have not been clear in my explanation. I would be glad to answer any more questions. I will check the categories again today to make sure there are no mistakes. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 13:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There is something wrong now with the Category:Sex crimes. Category:Child abuse now show up twice. Once on its own, and once as a subcategory under Category:Sexual abuse so it is double listed. Can you think of a way to fix this? Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it, possibly because I fixed it while you were checking. Could you confirm and explain in more detail? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the cagegory again and it looks fine. I guess I was confused. Sorry! Mattisse (Talk) 17:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate places to discuss editor behaviour

I'm afraid I have to give you a formal warning.(12:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)) I had said about my talk page, "would you please not make comments about each other (or any other editor) or about each others' behaviour or what you've done in the past, etc." There are appropriate places for discussing behaviour of editors in certain situations if their behaviour is inappropriate. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I can give you advice about how to proceed with that, if you ask me. However, comments about Redthoreau's behaviour, such as this "He even reversed User:SandyGeorgia, Raul's deputy" are not appropriate on my talk page. You made that comment, among others, in a direct reply to the comment where I had asked you not to make such comments. If you make any more comments about Redthoreau or about Redthoreau's behaviour, anything Redthoreau has done, the number of Redhtoreau's edits, etc., either on my talk page or on any article talk page, particularly Talk:Che Guevara, I will very likely take action which could result in you being blocked.(12:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)) I'm sorry about that.

I realize you have some perfectly valid concerns. I may be able to help you with some of them. However, it has to be done through proper channels. While trying to address your concerns, you need to be careful not to create problems yourself. You may post a brief note to my talk page such as "I would like help with a 3RR report" or "I need advice about dispute resolution" or similar request for help, perhaps with a link to a more complete message somewhere else, and I won't consider that to violate this warning(12:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)) if you're careful not to include unnecessary criticism of an editor in your brief note.

I'm also planning to reply on my talk page to some points you raised. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm striking out the warning. It was a mistake. I'm sorry. I should have used persuasion, not a threat. I didn't realize how you would feel if you received a warning like that. Also, after I posted the warning, I realized it was unrealistic. If I had asked an admin to block you for something like that, they almost certainly would have refused. I also realized that you were probably not aware that what you were doing was just what I had just asked you not to do. So I should have just pointed that out to you. --Coppertwig (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Psychedelic_therapy

Please take a new look at this article and see what you think, I like to think (such humility lol) I've improved it a bit.:) special, random, Merkinsmum 17:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that Timothy Leary was a foremost proponent of Psychedelic therapy and that he was fired from Harvard University for using his students as subject? (And he did a lot worse really). I was surprised to learn a while ago that in the 1950's in California it was considered a legitimate form of therapy, until they started the notorious experiments at Stanford University where Ken Kesey and the Grateful Dead were given LDS. Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooh I'll read up on that here a bit- interesting. I did read a little about the subject years ago, when I had some friends who were into it for a while. I saw so many friends/people who regularly used drugs left mentally ill for years afterwards though, that nowadays they disgust me and I think they degrade people. There've been a few more studies with psilocybin etc. recently. I'm very sceptical about the safety of these type of treatments and think they would have substantial risks- basically, I imagine the results would be very variable, with some people being made more ill by them. special, random, Merkinsmum 17:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A friend of mine was a student of Leary's and was largely responsible for Leary's firing by publishing articles in the Harvard Crimson and the Saturday Evening Post on what Leary was doing since the Harvard admin though Leary was conducting standard psychology experiments per experimental protoccols. Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Constructive -vs- Disruptive?

Mattisse ... considering our recent and heated feud that has been taking place for several weeks ... I do find it questionable for you to now having taken interest in all of the articles that I have recently worked on. After not editing any of these articles ever before. Now sure every editor on wikipedia has the right to work on whichever article they wish ... and you could truly be interested in improving the quality of "coincidentally" the same articles that I recently worked on (even though the probability of such an occurrence would be very low) --- thus it leads me to question your true genuineness of criticisms and critiques. Going through and excessively tagging every photo on every article I have worked on, along with POV tags, tone tags, length, tags etc (as if you are an administrator, which you are not) could be warranted ... but they could also be an example of an attempt to create "annoyance". One that an administrator already warned you about this past week. I hope this is not the case, and that your motives are collaborative and not destructive. I would also contend that because of our past and very heated rivalry ... that it may be best for you not to mirror all of my edits, as you are already aware of our personal feud which as history shows us both, usually creates unnecessary frustration for the both of us. Redthoreau (talkTR 04:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not the same as when you followed me around and posted remarks that could be considered personal attacks on me, calling me insane and quesioning my mental health. In the case of images, this is a legal issue. The specialists at Wikipedia who deal with copyright issue will decide. Wikipedia is attempting to avoid lawsuits so they scrutinize the Fair use rationale for copyrighted images. I had trouble getting record covers of the actual song I was writing about. I question that there is a rationale that can justify the use of five copyright images in one article on a filem. Regards, Mattisse (Talk) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, will you hold the same position if I "suddenly" become interested in finding things to tag in all of the articles you have created or worked on? Redthoreau (talk TR 08:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. You can start here User:Mattisse/Articles I created. Many of these can used help and many have been messed up since I created them. It would be helpful if you would look through them for any problems. Thanks! Mattisse (Talk) 15:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:The Motorcycle Diaries.jpg

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits as you did to Image:The Motorcycle Diaries.jpg. Also, please refrain from putting 'fake' page protection templates. Finally, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the fair use that I added. SkierRMH (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Add Image:MotocicletaImage672.jpg - The fair use there is legitimate. SkierRMH (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Third image - also with addition of 'incorrect' page protection template Image:The Motorcycle Diaries scrnshot.jpg. You may note that an independent party (me) looked these over, fixed them up a bit, and have added fair use reviews to them. SkierRMH (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know

Dear Mattisse, I see that you are passing through tough times at wiki. In fact I am passing through the same in my practical life. My father in law is severely ill and hospitalized. Provably he is suffering from Polycythemia Vera, a rare blood disease. Though I don't feel much appetite for scientific efforts in this situation, I want to continue my intellectual responsibilities. So I am going to ask you very humbly, will you please finish the primary editing of the article? If you are stuck due to any reason, please let me know. But I believe and trust that you have the capacity to continue and finish. I believe your last approach was on the 16th March. Forgive me for giving you such troubles.Shoovrow (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for your situation as I too could sense the change in your mood, as you did mine. When you "primary editing of the article", do you mean the one I was working on recently? I was having a problem understanding the last part of the article, but if you wish, I will plow through as best I can. Mattisse (Talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, my friend please do not take me wrong. Actually I feel too sad cos my wife has lost her two brothers and one son. Now his father is ill with such problem. I don't know how much I can do for her. My friend do for the articles as much as you can till the last parts. Then, with your permission, I might work further. The first article ends first and if there is any scope then the second article can go. All the best wishes for you.Shoovrow (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary

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

Dorothy Goetz

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

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

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

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

Templates on Image pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article that may assist you

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

Important

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

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

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

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

Stats placed aside

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

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

RfC

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

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

Reap what you sow

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

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

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

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

This is a gentle reminder to you that it's not going to convince other editors that you have the moral high ground if you write long posts as you did here [1] which say another editor is "insane" "lies more than anyone I have ever seen" etc. I'm not involved enough to know who's right and who's wrong in this dispute, but you won't win by giving the other person ammunition to be able to argue that you are in breach of WP:NPA, if you see what I mean.

Mattisse (Talk) 04:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: [2] This is per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments Mattisse (Talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Soulstirrers.Cooke.cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Yazoo 1039.jpg

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

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

I'm back

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

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

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

Agitation (emotion)

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

please retract or justify accusations

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

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

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

DYK

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

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

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

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

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

Some help

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

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

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

Subcats

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

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

Opaeka'a Falls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

Important note

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concept of death and adjustment

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

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses

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

Re Che Guevara article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mattisse talk should not be archived

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article talk pages are unsuited for a systematic problem with an editor's contributions. Reviewing your contributions, it appears that you have a penchant for adding new material from dozens of different fields, from a single or few a sources, without having any particular understanding or appreciation of other sources.

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