User talk:Matt Deres/Archive 4

Deleted question on malysz
Hi, I deleted the question on malysz as nearly no one who responsded appeared to think it was a genuine question and give the history of similar questions from that IP. Feel free to discuss it here Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RD Talk page question
The issue on the talk page is very long (years long). So, I'll be so brief that it may not make sense. For many years, there has been an non in the 82.43.* range who spends half his time making constructive edits on the RD and half his time trying to get people upset elsewhere. He is not a standard troll or vandal as he never does anything completely wrong. What he does is attempt to go against any form of consensus that is being formed. For example, we have the GM pest who keeps posting rambling anti-GM "questions". We know they aren't real questions, but he does it anyway. So, there is a general consensus that we treat him as what he appears to be - a soapboxer. The 82.43.* guy complains that it is wrong to delete any of his questions because there is a hint of a question there. Over the years, he always goes against the consensus. So, he has created a reputation as someone who is purposely attempting to argue.

On top of this, he never ever signs any post he makes. Even when asked specifically to do so, he will not sign his posts. He won't even acknowledge that someone has asked him to do so. He has been asked very politely many times. My recent argument began as he ridiculed another user for not providing a diff while he refused to sign his post. The point is that you may forget to provide a diff once or twice, but that is a mistake. This user is purposely not signing his posts. That is not a mistake. So, I told the user that his complaint about not providing diffs is a weak complaint since he refuses to sign his posts. Then, after another user told him to sign his posts, he responded with a pointed argument to start another fight. I deleted his post and told him I did so because he didn't sign it. He reposted it and claimed that is must have magically vanished. I deleted it again and told him that I did so because he didn't sign it. He reposted it again. I deleted it again and told him that he didn't sign it - with the goal of getting him to, for once in the many years he has been doing this, make some comment about signing his posts. I knew he wasn't going to sign it, but I wanted him to take some responsibility for not signing it instead of pretending that he hasn't heard anything about signing before. In the end, he stopped posting his argument and said that any complaint about him not signing should be made to whomever runs the nosign bot.

I know that most users do not know the history of this user. I also know that most users do not agree even remotely with what I did. It was purely for me to know that this user once (and I know it will only be once) would have acknowledged that he was not signing his posts. He did so and I'm happy. I know he won't sign his posts at any time in the future because, as I pointed out, he is of the opinion that not signing his posts is a big FUCK YOU to everyone who has asked him politely to sign his posts. He won't let that go. -- k a i n a w &trade; 18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In case you didn't already notice, the little storm on the RD Talk page finally got some administrators to take the situation seriously and, rather quickly, it was discovered that the user had already identified himself as a previously banned user. What I don't understand is how an IP can show up and say "Hi.  I'm a banned user." and then be allowed to go on and stir up trouble for well over a year. --  k a i n a w &trade; 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RefDesk stuff
Thread returned from my Talk page in keeping with my policy stated at the top of my page.

Hi there. I make no apologies for my evaluation of the infamous non-signer. I've stated my views and I accept that you don't like them. However, I wanted to make it clear that I in no way meant to imply that you were a fool. My phrasing there was very unfortunate; I simply meant that I would be foolish to ignore the evidence at hand. Since you don't seem to consider his actions and statements to be evidence, you aren't being foolish to not amend your view. In my opinion, you are a valued contributor at the RefDesks; it would never be my intention to insult you personally. Though we obviously disagree about this issue, I hold you (and your opinion) in high regard. Again, my apologies. Matt Deres (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contacting me. I don't want to express an opinion about the person we are talking about. Your opinion may be well founded and I respect that. You can even say to someone (as examples) "your argument is hypocritical" but not "you are a hypocrite". If you will acknowledge that difference then I don't see any insoluble problem between us. Our confrontation is disruptive so do you think we can wind it down by mutually withdrawing comments? Then no hard feelings. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that what's going on on the RefDesk talkpage (as seems to often be the case) is no longer helpful to anyone or anything. I'm sorry that it's devolved into such a state and I acknowledge that my actions at least in part led to that state. However, and this is only after giving your reply to me a great deal of thought, I cannot agree that what I said was an ad hominem attack or with your suggestion for a different phrasing of my opinion. As our article states, an ad hominem attack "is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." First, I'm in no way arguing against his/her position - quite the contrary, I'm very much in the SteveBaker camp regarding the notion that people's words shouldn't be changed or fiddled with. My post was simply pointing out that she/he was hypocritical for, on the one hand, rebuking someone for not following the accepted norms of the site while on the other hand (and at the same time) consistently ignoring those norms. His/her habits were very much the "relevant characteristic" at hand. An ad hominem argument would be using that opinion of the poster to, say, argue against the poster's replies on the desk or opinions regarding adding another desk or something: HE: "I think we should have a religion desk because there's been a huge influx of religious questions over the last six months." ME: "Who cares what you think? You're nothing but a hypocrite anyway." - that's an ad hominem attack and it's something I try never to do. I also thought a great deal about your suggestion regarding re-phrasing my opinion. I went back and forth on it a bit, but in the end I don't see a true difference. Someone who teaches is a teacher, someone who acts heroically is a hero, someone who steals stuff is a thief, and someone who espouses hypocrisy is a hypocrite. What else to call them? I'm not about to go searching through all your contributions - have you never referred to a troll as a troll or a vandal as a vandal? It's popular these days to phrase criticisms in that way, but it's not something I can subscribe to; to me it's like trying to converse while in the passive voice. I referred to you earlier as "a valued contributor" on the RefDesk; would you have felt any differently about the compliment if I'd instead said "you make valuable contributions"? So, in the end, I don't feel that I can redact my comments. However, I won't be making any more comments in that thread; anything more I add would only stir the waters again, which wasn't my intention at any point. Matt Deres (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I offer withdrawal of both our comments on the RefDesk talkpage that begin @Cuddlyable3... and @Matt Deres... That's all. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You agreed and so do I. There is no need for either comment to stand. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Early thermal weapons
Glad you liked the article...I just started out tidying the original "boiling oil" article and got carried away...it was great fun researching it. I came across Mayor's book soon after I finished, and enjoyed it (yes, tales of soldiers' agony is just my thing:)). I fully intended to review etw in light of her work, and smooth out the prose a bit (it's a little rough) but I never got round to it. Must do it!   BTW, how did you get on with that sword?  Gwinva (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark Munoz
I don't think he should be removed from the Light Heavyweight category, because he used to fight at Light Heavyweight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.94.97 (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.  Mae din\ talk 05:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RD talk
Matt,

I want to apologize for what turned into far more of a diatribe than I originally intended. I slighted your contributions unfairly in the pursuit of a point that I didn't make very well. I'm sorry.

That said, I'll now comment on "Why you're defending Vranak's attempts to hijack the thread and spout his opinions is beyond me." -- That's not my intent. Rather, I see Comet Tuttle being, in my opinion, overly reactionary. Vranak has had problems on the RD in the past, and I don't see his current behavior rising to the level of those problems. As such, I don't see the need to call him out. Additionally, I don't see his current behavior being significantly different from a lot of the RD norm. Similarly, if the behavior isn't an outlier, I don't see the need to call him out. So mostly, I wasn't pleased to see this rise to the level of RD talk discussion; I think user page discussion could have been far more useful. Of course, I didn't really help matters in that regard, unfortunately. &mdash; Lomn 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi 8 7 8  (Come yell at me!) 16:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Again. Hi 8 7 8  (Come yell at me!) 17:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And again. Hi 8 7 8  (Come yell at me!) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Matt - no idea if im doing this right - learning as i go - thanks for your comments on the bed and sofa - i have a review from the british theatre guide but have no idea how to reference this in the text i added. can you help me please? http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/bedsofa-rev.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayneodell (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MfD - June 30, 2010
Please review my Active Discussion... again. OmniMaster (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

invitation to my talk page
204.112.104.172 (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC) See my talk page and give your honest oppinions on the voice of judy on jetsons movie. I have a forem there under august 2010. invite others please as well. Thank you.

annika
I do not know who it is editing my page and framing me, but i know the first name is annika, and she shares my IP address, there are no forems, i will delete everything ASAP, please reply on my talk page on what to do to stop annika. 204.112.104.172 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC) the real one.

Good removal
Good that you "thought better of it", but man, do I have to agree with what you wrote! Sheesh. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk
Please don't be a total jerk. Please also don't assume that just because you have no idea what you're talking about, nobody else does either. google answers another site snopes. Perhaps you would like to try again without embarrassing yourself? Consider this your only warning to not attack people and assume they don't know anything when, in this case, you are the person who had absolutely no idea. → ROUX   ₪  14:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Matt Deres (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't listen. Don't be a jerk. Also, grow up. → ROUX   ₪  03:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Snippy'??? How about not making gratuitous comments designed to belittle my sexuality? Naah, that would be an adult thing to do. → ROUX   ₪  17:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Blonde stag film
Hi, I found a reference in google search. See my post in ref desk. --Galactic Traveller (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Fever
Just FYI, you reverted the last edit in the Yellow Fever article, but the one you reverted to also contained vandalism. Never trust edits from IP addresses... I cleaned up the one you missed. Thank you for being a vandal-fighter! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wca42 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

reason for comment
The reason i put that comment there on the ref desk is because i have warned Adam Bishep about his constent attempts at getting people against me and also to get people to believe that I did sertin edits. I have explained who it was, i just changed his name because i don't want someone going after my friend, but i have asked adam to stop refering to IP edits from my computer. They're not necesarily me, it's just my computer. If you want to know where George (that isn't his real name) came up with the Annicka sherade, (spelling mistake, never could spell that word), then just ask me and i'll tell you about it, thanks. N.I.M. (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help about Catherine Thompson, and rationale of posts about "Cathy"
Thanks for helping me about what to do about finding more on Catherine Thompson, as sune as my connection's security is fixed, i'll try some of that stuff. The reason i did all those posts on the ref desk and other places in the article, is because like i mention on the talk page for the ref desk, i have gotten messages that indirectly state that the author of the message doesn't think that i'm right, or at least that's part of what i understand. I understand she is not totaly notable, but she does deserve mention. Voice acting isn't exactly a piece of cake, i would know. You have to get your lines right, make your voice change to what the director wants, which is not always easy and takes some practice, etc. etc. Anyway, thanks for helping me, you are a good friend. I've coppied this message to the others who have helped me with Catherine Thompson and her work on Biz Kid$. N.I.M. (talk), the biz kid, 05:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Mariannehoullou
User talk:Mariannehoullou, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Mariannehoullou and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Mariannehoullou during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Matt Deres (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

List
Hi! I saw you were involved with a previous nomination for deletion of List of suicides in fiction, and felt you should be informed of Articles for deletion/List of suicides in fiction (3rd nomination). Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge thing
see this, and this, and this. There's no question that the bridge was overloaded and flexing dramatically; there's apparently some question about whether it was or wasn't close to failure. so, not entirely an urban legend. I should look around and see if I can find an engineering analysis of he issue, but I don't have the time for a prolonged snoop at the moment. -- Ludwigs 2 17:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns
You do understand that, if you had asked for me to undo my edit in a polite tone instead of swearing at me, you would have still gotten the same result, correct? Because in general, if the first interaction you have with a person should not be to say "are you fucking kidding me" and then proceed to berate them, you generally don't engender an attitude in your target of collegiality. Generally, when you take that approach with a person, what you get instead is a defensive mindset, and you actually reduce the chance that you will get the goal you are after. Next time, if you actually are concerned with getting a situation corrected, if you handle it by contacting a person directly and privately (such as on a user talk page, as I am doing here) and if you take a tone of collegiality, you will in generally always get better results. Don't take the fact that I have done what you wanted as a sign that your approach in this matter was the correct one; I certainly do not wish to reinforce that. Be clear that, in the future, when you deal with people throughout your life, if you take the approach you tried this time, it will on average go worse for you than if you took a better approace. Just trying to head off future problems. -- Jayron  32  23:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Loss of appetite
As for why you might lose your appetite while sick, I can think of a few reasons:

1) Nutrients added to the digestive system may feed bacteria there.

2) If you vomit the food back up, you may choke or the acid may damage your esophagus and teeth.

3) If the food results in diarrhea, that may spread the disease to others, including those genetically related to you. (This is less of a problem with modern sewage and water treatment systems.)

So, these are ways that eating while sick might increase the chances that you, or somebody with your genes, will die. And, of course, humans don't starve to death if they don't eat much for a few days. The starvation response keeps us alive much longer (with an exception for diabetics and a few others).

Also, food has been scarce for most of human existence, and eating food you are unlikely to be able to keep down, and thus depriving others related to you of that food, might decrease their chances of survival, with no benefit to you. StuRat (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)