User talk:Blueboar: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Blueboar's talk page... Please leave a message at the sound of the beep.....

BEEEEEP

Re: Caisson (Asian architecture)

What do I do if PalaceGuard008 does not respond to my points? These are all points I have brought up more than once in the past either on his talk page, my talk page, or the article talk page. His response has been basically that they are not valid points and given a reason why they are not. He might say he has already responded to these points and does not feel he has to do so again.

For example, when I say I made a mistake in the original article, as I did in using one of the footnotes, he says he can assume that because he copied it from the article, it is correct. (I realize the mistake before he copied it and drove myself crazy trying to track down where I got it and was at the point of giving up when he copied it.) He has said that the footnote referencing the first paragraph is only meant to reference the last line and every reader would understand that. Regarding my complaints that he is using text and references out of context, he says that it is up to me to provide references to prove that is true. The burden of proof is on me.

For every other point, he has said my complaints are invalid.

What do you think? Thanks! Mattisse 13:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Give him some time to respond... he has stated that he will be busy in real life this week.

As to your example... I think the two of you are simply miscommunicating. He does have a point in assuming that the statement and footnote he took from the article you wrote was correct. I would assume the same thing. What you need to communicate to him is that in fact there was an error in the original article. That the source does not in fact back the entire statement. Thus, even though he did not act inappropriately in assuming it was accurate, he unknowingly copied bad information and it needs to be corrected. In other words, don't focus on his actions... focus on correcting the article. Blueboar 16:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I have communicated that the original reference was wrong to him, several times. He says I have to prove it is wrong by citing a contrary reference. We have been round and round on each of the "Issues" I listed. He did continue to edit other articles after he posted on the Caisson talk page yesterday, but perhaps I jumped to quickly to the conclusion that he would treat my objections as he has in the past by dismissing them. I will follow your lead on the time issue. However, he has said for several weeks that he is going to be too busy but he still manages to respond instantly and write long reasons on why he can disregard my issues with the article every time I brought one up as well as edit other articles. I am hoping that because you are mediating the outcome will be different. Thanks! Mattisse 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK... I will continue to try to mediate... but remember, there is just as likely a chance that I will agree with him as I do with you. I will have to listen to his side of the issue. Blueboar 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do, then you do. I know this place is not fair. I am very used to that. This was just particularly egregious. At ANI they told PalaceGuard008 he had to MERGE and he just ignored what they said. I have never had someone do this before, even though I had a nasty sock puppet trashing me for six months. (In fact, you might have been in on the very last of that. Were you involved with User:Jefferson Anderson and his pals User:Frater Xyzzy, User:Khabs and User:Tunnels of Set)?

I have stopped doing articles on China anyway. I hate to see garbage in an article, but that is me. I received a bunch of DYK's on China articles and zaojing was one of them. I got many compliments on on that particular article so I was sorry to see it trashed but that is the way it goes here. I get the pleasure from the writing anyway. Of my last 13 DYK's received since this October 6, 11 of them have been on the law. Legal articles require accuracy but I hate to see inaccuracy in a China article too. But I definitely have moved on from China. Whatever happens, I would just like to get this over with. I learned from the sock puppet incident that there are times when you have to stand up for yourself. You may have to shout in the wind for six months, but a rough justice ultimately results. Thanks for participating in this process, whatever the outcome. I truly appreciate you for being willing to do so. Regards, Mattisse 00:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My fear is that he won't respond until you go away. He will just wait you out. If he responds and you decide against me, that is O.K. Really, it is. Mattisse 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Blueboar, just wanted to thank you for introducing structure into the debate, something I tried repeatedly to do (with the "Centralised list of issues" section) but failed to get Mattisse to commit to. This method of progress is much better.

As you might have inferred from my initial charges, I am happy to discuss each issue raised by Mattisse, but could not do so when he was opening up lots of sections every day.

Please bear with my tardiness in replying, as I am quite busy at the moment. I do appreciate your commitment and Mattisse's seemingly endless energy, so I will try my best to respond in as timely a manner as possible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(An irrelevant comment after reading what Mattisse posted here): I totally agree with him that legal articles are so much better to work on than China-related articles! When I wrote Constitution of Australia and related articles, people who had issues with parts of it discussed it on the talk page, and did not go off and create their own, slightly differently named article on the same subject. Hmm. I'll shut up now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting that PalaceGuard008 stop making personal remarks about me and my motivations instead of focusing on content. He has done the same on the article talk page and I am requesting that this stop.

To defend myself from the above comment, I "did not go off and create [my] own slightly differently named article on the same subject", if that is what he is implying. To defend myself from his accusations on the article talk page, any mistakes I make are unintentional. I am requesting that PalaceGuard008 Assume Good Faith. I did not intentional forget the second sentence in the Peoples daily article. So it is unnecessary for PalaceGuard008 to say:

• [Note selective quotation by Mattisse]

Also, while I acknowledge that I have more time to edit, being trapped on an offshore oil rig, PalaceGuard008 has had time to edit other articles after he commented on the Caisson article, notably on Talk:Fort Street High School and get into arguments with User talk:Twenty Years. For all our sakes, I am requesting that we focus on getting this over as soon as possible. Thanks, --Mattisse 21:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know they let old ladies on offshore oil rigs. - Cyborg Ninja 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

I will continue with this discussion on Cassion (Asian architecture) only if the other guy returns. All his remarks have been removed from the talk page. It is as if he were never there. Someone is changing the talk page.

PalaceGuard008 continues to be insulting and condescending to me and you allow it. Nothing on Wikipedia is worth going through this. Certainly not for a bad article on Chinese architecture. I will not read anymore comments on the Cassion (Asian architecture) talk page until the comments become civil toward me. --Mattisse 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] This is the person who you said would be too busy too reply. There is something very wrong here. This is all out of proportion. I am asking you not to let this continue and the rudeness, snideness and insults continue toward me. It is making it impossible to continue. I started out with a conscientious list of issue with no attacks. Now it has descended into constant ridiculing me. I cannot continue under these conditions. Do you really think this[2] is O.K., for example? Or any number of other uncivil things going on? Mattisse 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, calm down please... I have asked PG to stop with the sarchasm. But I do have to say that I can understand the frustration that caused that sarchasm. He had just provided several sources that define "zaojing" as "caisson"... whereupon you asked him to prove that "zaojing" equals "caisson"... of course he is going to be frustrated with you. To be honest, I am a little frustrated as well. It is hard to understand what your objection is. Blueboar 01:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

When I expressed frustration at having to wait you defended him. When he has to wait a little while for me, you say you feel his frustration. You can hardly say you are impartial. Why are you so "understanding" of him and not of me under identical circumstances? Just because he has a constant "I am busy sign? you can see from his contribution list is is not all that busy to do multiple posting on other articles when I was waiting for his answer. Yet you defended him. Why did that not go both ways? Minutes after my last complaint prompted by the last bit of sarcasm etc to stop, made now that I am over the edge, you finely made the mildest of mild rebukes (days after my first complaints):

PG... come on, sarchasm does not help. Please assume good faith. That said, I think we can call the ...

The multipe signs he put up did not give you a clue?

---BIG FLAG FOR MATTISSE TO KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT---

More than on example of that and your response (days later) is "PG... come on, sarchasm does not help. Please assume good faith. That said,..."

I can no longer handle the sarcasm, personal attacks, snideness, and condescension. Despite my complaints, you have tolerated this treatment of me and made no attempt stop it. You did not even comment when he made snide comments about me on your talk page. The message is clear that this type of treatment of me is basically condoned on the Caisson (Asian architecture) page. I'm sorry this was the atmosphere and that this process, rather than turning out to be useful, was an ordeal to face each morning. I put a great deal of work into it, despite being under duress from the constant barrage attacks and atmosphere of meanness, so I did hope for a better outcome. But there comes a point where my personal mental health is more important than an article on Wikipedia. I will find another solution in dealing with PalaceGuard008. Mattisse 03:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer willing to continue this process in an atmosphere treating me with sarcasm, personal attacks, ridicule, is condone. --Mattisse 04:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am removing your page from my watchlist, so do not bother to answer. --Mattisse 04:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)