User talk:BarkingFish/Archive 1

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE, PLEASE DO NOT EDIT IT.

Welcome Back
--Brian McNeil / talk 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Contact Information
Please see my Accredited Reporter tag on my Userpage for Contact information. Iceflow (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

RE Suicide
Now it seems that everything related to that subject on Wikipedia is gone... DragonFire1024 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But he was editing again, after I left for work...He was then blocked for 2 days for personal attacks...as much as suicide is serious, I cannot believe someone would use Wikipedia or any Wiki project for their own personal publicity stunt. Sad...unfortunately, if he is ever serious, no one will believe him now. DragonFire1024 20:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Apologies for reverting but as i explained on the admin action page the data released could have been wrong and your previous statement says you withheld it for confidentiality. Also i saw you had edited before hand so i thought it could have been an imposter. Apologies once again but i had my reasons. --Mark Talk to me 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Acredditation request
For the reasons I described at WN:AR, I have changed my vote to for your accreditation request. Anonymous101talk 09:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to hear about your grandfather, my condolences, ...
 * I supported your accreditation request and also left some questions for you to answer there. All the best, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC Problem
Contact me on IRC re: your nickname issue. I may be able to help you out :) --Skenmy(t•c•w) 14:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I am available right now if you are able, but I am out from about 5:00pm my time (1:30 from now). I'll see what I can do for you. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 14:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

World's first double arm transplant undertaken in Munich
Good work on World's first double arm transplant undertaken in Munich. Unless you have any concerns I'll publish it. Anonymous101talk 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Its very much appreciated to get 2nd lead!  Thor Malmjursson (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

yay! you has user page!!!
-- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's official. This section title made me retch. -- Sken   my talk 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I aim to please Skenmy! Besides, I'm a photog, not a writer. I make no illusions otherwise.  Though I was trying to be an ass.  Seems I succeeded.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 06:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC
Thanks so much. The Mind&#39;s Eye (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome...Glad I could be of service to you. Feel free to /msg me if you have anymore difficulties. Iceflow (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that I have registered my IRC nick, am I the only one who can use it? The Mind&#39;s Eye (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. Now that nick is registered, there is no way anyone else can use that nick.  The only way someone else can have that nick now is if you ever decide to leave freenode and cancel the registration; then and only then does it become free again. :)  Iceflow (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your question ...
... has been answered. Hope it satisfies you, if not I can elaborate. —Calebrw (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Story Tip ?
http://www.trainsimcentral.co.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3207 Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Roo meat story...
Don't worry, even professional journalists have made spectecular gaffes.

The roo-meat story is still worth continuing with :)

You might need to change the approach though, and clarify things with the people you've approached. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to roo meat story --
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/UN_scientist:_Eat_less_meat_to_tackle_climate_change

Peer Reviewed Template
Hey,

Just a reminder, on Cancer trial patient dies after hospital computer system error, you did not add a peer review to the collaboration page. Every time an article is published, a peer review must be submitted. peer_reviewed Thanks, —Calebrw (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply
✅, see User:Iceflow/Nursery worker charged with sexual assault. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Joe McElderry article
Please read the second BBC News source.   Tris   21:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy?    Tris   21:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See my talk page    Tris   22:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied.    Tris   22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

2 Issues

 * 1) 1 Articles should not be unpublished unless there is a darn good reason. Like massive copyvio or otherwise large and glaring issues.  If thing slips past the review to publish and has some issues - Fix them.  #2 - The wub was in the clear on his work of Joe McElderry wins UK X Factor final.   It is expected, even appreciated, for a reviewer to do copyedits on the article they are reviewing.  They are looking through it critically for a review, so one would expect them to find flaws (And what does one do with flaws? Fix em).   Now if he re-wrote a significant portion of the article.... that would be a different story. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for assistance from en.wikinews
Hi,

I'm sorry I can't help, because I'm not in Milan. I'll try to find witnesses and photographers on the floor among my contacts. --Tooby (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing...
... Dubai receives bailout from Abu Dhabi. Calebrw (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

single source
While the article you took this off no longer qualifies, it did when it listed four BBC sources because, well, they all come from the one organisation. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aussie election
The contact for the Australian Electoral Commission is Phil Diak. He is the Director, Media and Communication Strategy at the AEC. he can be phone on +61 2 6271 4415 or +61 413 452 539. Also, see their press release. Hope ths helps --RockerballAustralia c 21:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

admin
Congrats your admin. Welcome to the cabal. :P Bawolff ☺☻ 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sshhh... The first rule of the Cabal, is you never talk about the Cabal :) Thanks!!! BarkingFish (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong 'tutor king' applies for bankruptcy
You see, I have provided some translations of the sources. This has happened before and I remember the community accepts that articles can be published if the sources are in a foreign language when translations are provided. (Water_cooler/assistance/archives/2010/June) Thanks, Kayau (talk &middot; contribs) 03:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Second earthquake in eleven days hits New Britain, Papua New Guinea
When you make significant changes to an article, like [ this], don't sight them yourself. --Pi zero (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That's the whole reason we switched off autosight. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Telstra becomes the first in the world to switch to HSPA+ wireless Internet technology
I noticed this in Articles mispublished, where it had washed up when EPR failed to sight it. I sighted it. --Pi zero (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg Biffle wins Kansas in 2010
Now give me a break, if Fernando Alonso wins 2010 Singapore Grand Prix passed this one should to. How would I know what the Singapore Grand Prix is, or how would I know what Fernando Alonso is. Also, the official results come out to late, if I needed to wait for them, then the article shouldn' be published anyway. How would this sound as the new title NASCAR: Greg Biffle wins 2010 Price Chopper 400?  Nascar 1996   00:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rare 1856 Double Eagle gold coin sells for US$345,000 in California
This shouldn't have been published in the form it was. Besides the fact that it's clearly an advertisement &mdash;and I'm therefore very dubious that it was newsworthy at all&mdash; the lede was in non-news style (advert style, in fact) and didn't answer the basic questions, one of the paragraphs was verbatim from one of the sources, and there were no categories on it. --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I may be overplaying the advert thing... although I don't think the sources are reliable for the qualitative claims ("front page news" sounds like pure hyperbole to me, e.g.). All the facts I specifically chased down do seem to be in the sources &mdash;the most esoteric one I checked was the name "James Bullock"&mdash; and the sum of money involved does seem likely to make it newsworthy, although I don't really know that since I'm not involved in coin collecting at that level (so if I were reviewing it I'd do some checking around about the significance of 345k).


 * The other problems bother me, though. Before publishing, I'd have either eliminated the hyperbolic phrases or failed it on neutrality; either fixed the lede to answer the basic questions or failed it on style; fixed the verbatim-copied paragraph; and added at least one geocat and a major topic category.


 * Then, last thing before publishing, I always check WN:Tips on reviewing articles to see what I've forgotten. --Pi zero (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Closing Accreditation Requests
Duly noted. Obviously, I wouldn't have closed it if it weren't unanimously opposed with no discussion in several days. I assumed it worked something like non admin closures of RFA's at en.wp. Then again, this isn't wn.wp. At any rate, I will ping an admin next time. Tyrol5 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

IP block notice
You could make that text you used into some template. — Mike moral  ♪♫  07:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

korean wikinews

 * Ref: w:ko:위키백과토론:대사관

I move your writing from korean wikipedia to korean wikinews. Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Lukashenko re-elected for the 4th time as President of Belarus
See the talk page. Looks to me like this one completely got past you. (BTW, of the three sources, the two that weren't VOA were two copies of one article.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What the hell happened with this? I've just been looking at the review log, and you published three articles in three minutes.  The first of them, chronologically, was utter garbage, written by someone who presumably doesn't know any better, but I'm having trouble with how someone who does know better published it.  WTF? --Pi zero (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * When IRC actually affects things on-wiki, you absolutely should go into details. Go over to the water cooler thread right now and give details and name names.  Right now you're in deep shit, for betraying the trust invested in you with the reviewer bit; pressure from someone else that induced your behavior is something that needs to come out in the open, for the good of the project.  While it won't altogether exonerate you &mdash; you should, frankly, have taken it to the water cooler with details and names first &mdash; showing some backbone now will certainly make you look a lot less Snidely Whiplash.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation Request Question Answered
Hi BarkingFish. (Just to let you know) I've answered the question on my accreditation request. Thanks :) ~YTT T 04:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer Promotion
I have promoted you to the Reviewer class, entrusting you with the ability to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read: You are welcome to use User Wikinews reviewer.
 * Flagged revisions
 * Reviewing articles
 * Peer review
 * Review
 * Reviewed article version
 * Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

Diego Grez return fire 03:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know how it works ;) Diego Grez return fire 03:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

noindex on WC
Why would we want the water cooler unindexed. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's only there while the notice about the investigation into Google is present. Someone on IRC pointed out that all our pages may be indexed by search engines, and if I'm carrying out an investigative report into Google, Chrome and YouTube, the last thing I want is for their robot to crawl by, index the page and they get wind that they're being investigated. As soon as the notice is archived, I'll take the noindex off. BarkingFish (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is being a bit paranoid, but as long as its only temporary, that sounds fine to me. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is being paranoid. Google's search indexer alerts Google to pages where they are mentioned, if I remember correctly, sort of as a PR helper. BarkingFish (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If google was doing that, its iffy if they would obey noindex tags (especially for pages with follow) Bawolff ☺☻ 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You realise that they're crawling this page, right? — μ 00:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not now they're not. BarkingFish (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer bit
I truly do not wish to push you to do anything you aren't comfortable with. I said in the discussion on your removal request that you might want time to find your balance again. Brian McNeil's phrasing was "time to reflect", and xe mentioned speedy re-grant thereafter. Observing time passed and your behavior during that time, including informal reviews, I do wish to express my own opinion that the remaining question is whether you feel ready for the bit back. Of course you should take any additional time you want, to find your balance, to reflect &mdash; but I will support re-grant whenever you judge yourself ready and request it. (I know, about the worst thing one can do to a person is trust xyr better judgment. Sorry about that. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will look at reapplying, but that incident has still got me shaken, despite how long ago it was. TBH I don't think I want to come back to reviewing yet. BarkingFish (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding
I am taking you up on your offer to discuss this problem. Right now I am very discouraged about writing for Wikinews, which is depressing after my initial excitement. Writing news articles is something I do for a living. Here at Wikinews there appears to be very little opportunity for a more sophisticated article, other than the usual several paragraphs with two or three repetitious sources that are obviously using the same news source, such as AP, and containing the same information that anyone with a radio, TV, and/or Internet access has already heard over and over. For example, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden has superficial information and three sources that are virtually carbon copies of each other. This seems to be the level of news writing that Wikinews supports. Is there any room for something a little more ambitious? Or will the reviewer resent that more than two or three sources are used, as happened in my case, and refuse to consult them before reviewing and labeling text POV based on his personal opinion?

Am I wrong in thinking that the reviewer should consult the sources before calling information such terms as "poetic POV" and saying certain information "worried" him without specifying why?

Please tell me the true situation. Is it possible to write a sophisticated article than does more than repeat three carbon copy sources? Or is this the wrong place for me to use my article writing skills? (I am a professional writer, accustomed to dealing with editors in my daily work, so I was taken aback by the reviewer's approach to my article.) Regards, Mattisse (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking around, I see that you are beholden to the reviewer of my article and so may not be able to address my concerns above. I will remove my comments if you desire. Is there some other editor I can discuss these concerns with who can be candid with me? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution Note that it is currently 3am where BarkingFish lives 86.141.97.31 (talk)

Regarding mentorship
Sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner.

I'm uncomfortable with the image of myself as a mentor.
 * I don't believe I'm sufficiently competent. I do suffer from impostor syndrome generally, but I specifically don't consider peer review a strong suit of mine.  Some aspects of it I'm good with, and when I review at all, I choose articles I feel comfortable are within my ability.
 * The time commitment isn't something I should do.

This brings up something I've had on my mind lately. I've hesitated to bring it up on the water cooler because it's not well enough formed. But I see a serious design defect in the mechanism of peer review. We expect one person to do everything, with no safety net against mistakes and a reasonable chance that mistakes won't even be detected promptly. Not only is that error-prone in itself, but as site activity increases the proportion of publication mistakes increases, that raises tensions, and the project turns into a powder keg. Recalling the way the site exploded last year, I'd say this design defect really needs fixing. --Pi zero (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to post that last thought on the water cooler after all. It wants all the brainpower that can be brought to bear on it.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Editprotected
Might want to take a look at this. — μ 10:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

lolsonfire111
May want to add to avoid preventing articles beginning with the word(s): "Puppies found in a gunnysack with a rock" etc. But very amusing! (I have to admit I immediately thought of a song title...) -  Amgine | t 16:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer Promotion
I have promoted you to the Reviewer class, entrusting you with the ability to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read: You are welcome to use User Wikinews reviewer.
 * Flagged revisions
 * Reviewing articles
 * Peer review
 * Review
 * Reviewed article version
 * Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Any reason for this hostile attitude? I meant it to be a friendly joke, but it appears was "an unwelcome comment", so just checking... Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering the reason I surrendered the rights in the first place, the comment felt hostile, so I felt it welcomed a hostile response. If you meant it as a joke, fair enough, it simply didn't feel very funny. BarkingFish (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I can assure you that I did not make the comment to be sarcastic or whatever. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock requests
Hi BarkingFish, in my experience admins who perform blocks should not be the ones to review unblock requests. Rather, an uninvolved sysop should look at them. You may wish to reconsider your handling of Geoffreybard. Regards, Tempodivalse [talk]  00:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I spoke to other admins present on IRC about the unblock request, none offered to handle it. BarkingFish (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IRC is independent from the wiki and should not be used as a basis for something as important as a block. If nobody was available immediately to handle the request, you could have waited a while; eventually someone would have volunteered. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. BarkingFish (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not stepping into this" could have been more easily done by simply leaving the unblock request for someone else to handle. I don't like to argue, but I also don't like to see people being treated unfairly. There should have been at least a warning; and barring that, at least a link to the offensive edit in question. I'm currently unsure which of his comments you felt crossed the line. Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He was pratically attacking every reviewer on here with every edit he made. I was watching it in the recent changes. -- Nascar <font color=" #1234aa">1996  (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tempodivalse, while I appreciate your input, this is the edit which was dealt with - the comment was this: "In the meantime, I suggest you interview some Hiroshima survivors or get a good whiff of radiation yourself before you belittle the heroism of the Fukushima rescue workers." - I consider it a personal attack, 2 wrongs don't make a right. Brian's comments to him may have been harsh, they're not what I was dealing with.  His attacking Brian with remarks like that is what I was dealing with. With extreme prejudice, I refuse to discuss this any further. He's blocked, it stays. BarkingFish (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's peanuts next to the stuff users say about each other here sometimes. Why aren't we slamming them with blocks too? Because Geoffreybard's not an admin? I'm saddened that you don't wish to even reconsider in the face of opposition. unblock exists for the purpose of allowing someone supposedly less biased to make a second decision. If you're sure the block is correct, why not prove it by letting someone else refuse the unblock request? I'm not going to pursue this any further, I have better things to do than argue; others may take it up if they wish. Best regards. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I deal with what I see, Tempodivalse. I spend most of my day at work, and don't get to contribute much at night. There are other admins here, they do what they wish. I do what I see fit. If I don't see the attack in question, I can't deal with it. I'm not psychic and don't intend to take classes to assist in it. BarkingFish (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Note about:"polite" comment you claim you made after your block threat on User talk:TUFKAAP
Here it is: [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&diff=1184986&oldid=1184985 Thank you for your consideration, Mattisse. I understand your frustration, but there are better ways of talking things over. You're welcome to speak with any of us, and we will try and help you in any way possible.]

I believed you and the result was pretty meaningless for a newbie. I took you up on your offer here: I thanked you for your offer of help and asked a few questions. 

Your response: resolution]] Gee, thanks! Very welcoming to a newbie. But looking around I see that you are beholden to Pi zero so you are unlikely to offer me helpful advice. So that is your "polite response" you tout on User talk:TUFKAAP. Thanks for such personal help. Mattisse (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You barely gave me 23 minutes to answer your "questions" before stating that I appeared to be beholden to Pi Zero (which at that time, was only because of a Previous issue in which Pi had quite a big say, and nothing more) - before telling me that you'd remove those comments if I wanted. The comment I made was polite. Certainly a lot more polite than what I initially said to you.  You could have asked any other editor here and they'd have helped you, if you considered that because of my involvement with Pi Zero, that I was not in a position to do so.  My response clearly stated that. "You're welcome to speak with any of us" - By the way - Just so you know, I wasn't the one who referred you to dispute resolution - look at the signature, it's an IP address, and it's not mine :) BarkingFish (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Recommended reading
Recommend that you get beyond the "nutshell" and read the actual policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I think you will find that you have not been following it. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh. Wikilawyering with Wikipedia policies. Those are not cross-wiki. Thanks. Diego Grez return fire 01:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm is your defense for BarkingFish? It is not a way to be convincing. Rather, it makes it seem that you have no defense for him. And it takes the discussion to a new low. He said at the Water Cooler he follows Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks. Perhaps you were unaware of that. In BarkingFish's defense, he seems to be attempting to make helpful suggestions at the Water Cooler. You are not his friend to post meaninless sarcasm on his page. for BarkingFish: {from the Wikipedia policy you purport to follow: Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack. Mattisse (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Diego, please. I was the one who quoted a wikipolicy from WP, which I follow here. I'd appreciate a bit of leeway for a moment, could I ask you to stay out of this for a bit? :) Thanks! BarkingFish (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, Mattisse. I didn't ask him to do that.  I am well aware of the policy there, and used two of their terms of personal attack to adjudge what you said as one.  "Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor." - Your comment made it clear that you thought Pi Zero was at a disadvantage because he was probably much younger than you - "Perhaps you are much younger than I am. I have been rigorously trained to relay on sources and not my personal opinion." - and the second one I applied was "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." - Your comment made it clear that you thought Pi Zero relied on his own prejudices, worries and his own idea of what is "true" - "I think you do not appreciate the more complex aspects of article writing and seem to rely on your own preconceptions of what is true, your own prejudices, your own "worries."
 * In my opinion, therefore, justifying what I saw, I agree that I should not have threatened you with a block, but in the circumstances, I was right to state that this was a personal attack, by the definition I already follow. I hope that clarifies things for you. BarkingFish (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you BarkingFish. I truly appreciate your sincere attempts to resolve this. Could you explain what part of what I said to Pi zero was a personal attack as defined by Wikipedia? As far as I can tell, the entire conversation was on . All I see is two editors trying to work out problems, albeit somewhat emotionally. That is not a personal attack. I say to him I realize he is acting in good faith and never assumed otherwise. It is critical that I understand exactly what I said was a personal attack and by what standards. How else can I learn to avoid doing so again? How can problems be worked out if all conversation must be vague and bland? Please help me understand. Mattisse (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Having further reviewed the entire conversation, I actually note on a re-read that you did make it clear that you didn't intend to be nasty. In respect of this, therefore, I give you a full public apology for the way I behaved towards you.


 * I've taken a couple of days to mull over our discussions and the attempts to repair the damage I caused to your opinion of myself, and more importantly, the project as a whole.  My conclusion is that I behaved in a less than rational way, and against the standards of civility expected and indeed required by myself as an administrator to the project.


 * I ask that we bury the hatchet (not literally of course, although I have a feeling several people here would like to do that to me, probably in my head), and I call an end to my mood swings here. They clearly help nobody. I hope you accept my apology, and will understand entirely if you don't. Best wishes, BarkingFish (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I gratefully accept your apology and have already changed my opinion of you based on the web chat. My desire is to have a good working relationship with you. Thanks for taking the time to reevaluate the situation. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)