User talk:Mattisse/Archive 16

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_15) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_17}

Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)

Thanks for revisiting the FAC discussion. You may have noticed I gave an extensive response to your thoughts on overlinking. I also removed a few links. You did not comment on the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have noticed that another editor took over the copyediting of the article. Since you last noted you remain opposed a lot has changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you just commneted at 15:48 (UTC). Sorry for the bother. Thanks for your continuing attention.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I did notice that and praise him for all his hard work. He did help the over linking situation greatly and tightened the prose. The problem is that you and I disagree over what is properly contained in such an article. To me, much of the the article reads like one of those combination of gossip and advertising tabloids that you use as sources. As I said before, the article will probably attain FA despite my opinion. And I do hand it to you for all the work you have put into it and even more for the compromises you have made. I think you probably are a Chicago booster. It is a shame though, that Chicago's fine architectural tradition and it's famed school of architecture is now consigned to the rubbish heap of history in its newest buildings. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

auto-lemon

Hi Mattisse—good work pointing out the need to remove it from that article, both to reduce clutter and to retain the iconic US formatting of "Sepember 11" (otherwise reversed by many people's prefs). Often nominators won't remove the formatting themselves, but won't object to its removal by someone else. I target the ones that are heavily linked or that are full of dates. It's not mandatory to delined, BTW. Tony (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately I must have worded it incorrectly, as the editor was told to put the links back in. Personally I do not understand the ruckus over the format of dates. I know a date when I see one regardless of format. I have my Preferences set to none. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, Mattisse. In my view, WP has been fooled into using what was essentially a computer programmer's wonkery, developed back in ?2004. The campaign to ween editors off the bright-blue splotch is gathering pace. But we must be careful to target the right articles, at least initially. I go for the ones that are already pretty busy with links. I cleanse all autoformatting, which means month-day and month-day-year. I think people will get upset if only one of these categories is de-lemonned and not the other. We don't want a backlash—you know how resistant to change some WPians can be. Please see the second para here, which I've recently augmented to cover all-or-nothing and a recommendation for the use of hard spaces.

At the very least, removing lemon will allow our high-value links to breathe. And of course, lemon is hopelessly indulgent, since it formats for WPians only, yet forces all of those tens of millions of readers out there to see coloured splotches and underlines. As a reading psychologist, I'm painfully aware of how this makes the reading experience subtlely slower and less satisfying.

We need to keep in mind that MOSNUM doesn't deprecate; it merely no longer encourages lemon. I've already had one person say that it encourages, and had to quote this back at them:

Careful consideration of the disadvantages and advantages of the autoformatting mechanism should be made before applying it: the mechanism does not work for the vast majority of readers, such as unregistered users and registered users who have not made a setting, and can affect readability and appearance if there are already numerous high-value links in the text.

Another issue that has come up is the need to recommend the insertion of non-breaking ("hard") spaces, although I can cope without, personally. You may be interested in the model text I sometimes paste into FAC or article talk pages, tweaking it for particular contexts:

It was overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting of dates whether autoformatted or not), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it [or "removed the date autoformatting] to allow your high-value links to breathe.

PS, also, if you cleanse an article, it's best to insert an invisible editors' comment at the top: , to forestall any well-meaning reverter who may come along without knowing the new context.

Well, I can't agree with you more. But Sandy's my best wikifriend, and I respect her opinion even when I'm not totally on-board with it. So I'm adding hard-spaces into the dates when I cleanse FACs and FLCs (easy with my macro when I paste the entire text in and out of Word). I'm not going to to complain if you don't insert the hard-spaces, although if there are only a small number of lemons in a nomination, you might consider it (also easy in the edit window simply to copy–paste after your first manual insertion.

I'm pleasantly surprised that, while most people are passive about the change, some really like it.

But let's ensure that these are thorough jobs, encompassing both double and triple dates. Sandy's right to complain that I've done one only in a few articles. And softly, softly, please; presenting it as an option for improvement is likely to succeed, whereas I worry that people will react poorly if it's thrust on them as a mandated issue (which it's not).

Monobook should be under development soon to further ease the task. Watch this space!

Thanks for your support on this issue, Mattisse. Tony (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I will stay out of it then as I don't want to get entangled in unpleasantness with other people who have hardened views. I lack an automated way of inserting NBSP's except the paste method you mention. So I am fearful of making a mistake and getting punished for it! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved: I've been bold and removed the requirement from MOS (it was inserted only a month or two ago, when we overhauled the hard-space section). Now, we're left simply with MOSNUM's "Consider adding a [hard space] ...", which you can ignore if you wish. I don't add them when removing them manually, I can assure you. Without a short-cut (yet another issue MediaWiki hasn't addressed, damn it), the gobbledygood character-string is just TOO MUCH! But I insert on my semi-automatic macros when I cleanse an article. With or without, no prob. Tony (talk) 04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm always happy to see common sense triumph. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Leopard 2E FAC

Thank you for the invaluable copyediting you did to the article - it was crucial for the FAC. JonCatalán (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Congradulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Linking dates

You stated the following: "The only reason for linking dates at all was for the autoformatting function. " and a whole bunch of stuff that follows somewhat logically if this is true. However, I am not sure it is true. Can you tell me what do you mean by autoformatting and can dates be linked without autoformatting. I keep seeing dates linked in articles on the main page at WP:TFA and don't know what the fuss is about. For example, look at the first paragraph of yesterday's TFA, Guitar Hero (video game). That has a whole bunch of linked dates. How does autoformatting relate to these dates. Should the be delinked?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In that article, Guitar Hero (video game), the autoformatted dates accomplish the following (theoretically): If I have my preferences set for "8 November 2005" (the first date), I will see the date that way. If I have my date preference set for "November 8, 2005", I will see it like that. If it is set to "2005 November 8", I will see this, and if like "2005-11-08", then I will see that, etc.

The trouble is that autoformatted dates do not work as they are supposed to, as the autoformatting software at wiki is a mess, according to those who know. Secondly, even if it did work correctly, it would only be helpful to the very small percentage of readers, really only the elite wikipedia editors who are both registered and who have their preferences set, and not the general reader. Setting preferences prevents wiki editors from seeing the mess in autoformatted dates that the general reader coming to wikipedia sees.

Also, autoformatting prevents correct date punctuation in may cases. If editors try to use correct date punctuation, it breaks to autoformatting.

Tony1 has said that as he goes through FACs to remove autoformatting in dates, he finds a mess. As far as articles on the main page, I think we recognize that older articles have been held to lower standards than is currently the case. No one wants to deal with the amount of work needed to bring those articles up to standards right now. Plus, the recognition that autoformatted dates are a software plague with no benefit has only been clear recently; the general wiki editor is not aware of this, although Tony1 says the general reaction to his delinking dates in articles is very positive.

Currently, many people are fixated on using autoformatted dates and the "sea of blue" and do not see the point of allowing high value links "to breathe", as Tony1 says. They cling to a custom that was once thought useful, just because that was the way it has been always done. Tony1 thinks that the autoformatted dates are an enormous scam by the wiki software people perpetuated on the rest of us. However, breaking the fixation on autoformatted dates is not a change that can be forced on editors after so many years of dependence. This is why Tony1 spends so much time trying to convince editors of the benefits of delinking.

My opinion here has been formed by reading Tony1's page and reading the posts he has sent me. I personally recognize a date when I see one and do not care how it is formatted. I also am distracted by dates linked for no reason. It makes it harder for me to read the article and harder to find links I might want to click on when there are so many useless links in the article.

Lately editors seem to be pushing for a standard format for dates anyway, as the world is globalized enough that we are all accustomed to different date formats. As Tony1 says, even his Australian newspaper uses an American style date format, and no one is ruffled. (Another problem is that in the cite and citation templates, the autoformatted dates are broken - there is no consistency in these templates so they are going to need standardizing eventually.)

Hope this helps. I think I am explaining the situation correctly. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I remain confused on the difference between standard format dates and autoformatted dates. Please join the discussion at User_talk:Tony1#Linking_dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to get all the discussion in one place please respond at User_talk:Tony1#Linking_dates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ring shout

Thanks, Mattisse, for taking an interest in this article. I've been discussing Steve Pastor's edits with him on his talk page, and I've just linked to there from Talk:Ring shout.

I started the article over a year ago because it was flagged at WikiProject:African diaspora as a needed article. Of course it is not "mine" and I have been hoping others would step in. Right now, though, I feel a little impatient. Would like to step back from the discussion until I regain my cool, so would be obliged if you would continue to give your views. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 16:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I am very interested in the topic and surprise that there is not more well-sourced information on it. It seems to me I have read more on it but I cannot remember where. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

A few writers in the 18th century experienced concerns of "madness". Right now, I've been working with SandyGeorgia going over Samuel Johnson. In the 18th century context, "madness" was mostly just an excuse to lock people up, instead of an actual diagnosis as it is today. Now, Christopher Smart's case was more cut forward (see Christopher Smart's alleged madness for about 70% of the information) as there was not enough evidence to really suggest problems. However, Johnson's was more problematic. There were 18th century ideas of "madness" and many reports of actions. Then there are current diagnosis and actual arguments for him having Tourette syndrome. Now, I was thinking of having the 18th century view put into a style like Christopher Smart's, and having the medical view (actual diagnosis based on actual criteria) be given its own page. I was wondering if you could think this over and see if it would really "flow" properly. We are looking for many opinions on this, and I would appreciate yours. Here is where the most recent discussion happened. And excuse the tense language, we are working to move it to an FA and the amount of effort and work put strain on all of us, so, yeah. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read over the talk page discussion and I am afraid I don't quite understand what you are proposing. Is it a series of separate articles on people who may or may not have been "mad" from an 18th century point of view, like perhaps William Blake, stressing in each case the political uses of "madness" a la Michel Foucault, Thomas Szasz, and perhaps the anti-psychiatry movement in general? It seems to me actual arguments regarding a subject's mental status would go into the biography about that person, as could any ruminations of that person on the subject. Perhaps there is enough material, without being repetitious, to compile many, separate articles, if that is what you are suggesting. Am I understanding correctly? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically. Those like William Cowper (who was "treated"), Smart, Johnson, etc, have many books devoted to their "madness" and their view points. I would only focus on those who have many sources and had "famous" cases devoted to them (like Dr Brain's analysis of Smart, Johnson, and Boswell). While Johnson has "actual" diagnosis (i.e. Tourette Syndrome) this would need a separate page, so no one confuses the 18th century political/social use of madness with actual psychiatry. This would only be proposed where the information is notable to the individual (being locked away, being kept from society, etc). I can think of 4 major theorists who discuss the generality of the use of "madness" in the 18th century, and can come up with multiple sources (over 15 for Smart, over 10 for Johnson, and over 10 for Cowper). Its a notable topic, just hard to put together (lack of interest in the 18th century). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is your position that none of these persons actually had a mental illness, and that the medical ignorance of the day was strictly used for political ends? (I would have to disagree with that point of view, I'm afraid.) However, a thoughtful inquiry into the very real problems of dealing with various forms of mental illness at a time when medical knowledge was nil might also be worth exploring - along with the issue of the misuse of labeling people. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"madness" isn't a mental illness perse, but a social/political label, and there were laws passed to redefine treatment and to give people rights. While someone like Smart was imprisoned, there were no trials, and people could have habeas corpus rulings to force the prisons to be released. However, this was hard to accomplish based on the corruption found within the system. I'd want to separate the medical from the social ramifications. Yes, some of these people may have had real problems, but most were locked away because they were "threats" to someone. Before this time, they would just outright kill political dissidents and the "disagreeable", however, this became an easier solution. For example, a lot of the early Methodists were affected by the branch type of "madness" called "religious hysteria" that labeled any evangelical as potentially mad.. It was a strange phenomena, and it forced the British parliament to adopt many reforms until the practice was "fixed". Ottava Rima (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

script

Mattisse—I've alerted the writer of the script to this issue. Have you used the "import" string alone in a new monobook? Have you added it beneath the existing code in your existing monobook? Tony (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added it to a existing monobook. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried your monobook setup and it worked for me. What articles did you try using it on? Gimmetrow 02:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That is mysterious! Among articles I have tried: Dhamtari District, Oymapinar Dam, Ellis Rubin, Albert Tirrell, Bobbie Joe Long, Open the Door, Richard. But also many, many others over and over, including Frank Zappa. I even uninstalled some of my Firefox addons, just incase they were interfering. (Left my favorites, of course). Am I doing something wrong? Just open the edit window and push one of the "dates" tabs, right? (I have tried all of the tabs over and over. The Lightmouse edit summary appears in the edit summary box. But no dates are delinked and if I save it, there is no edit in the history.) —Mattisse (Talk) 13:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Mattisse, How are you? I wrote an e-mail to an English professor concerning the scholarly article on death and adjustment. I have sent a Cc copy to you too. Read it and tell me any opinion you might have.Shoovrow (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I will mention your name in acknowledgment, I hope you won't mind!Shoovrow (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is extremely nice of you. Please realize that it is unnecessary! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFK assassination

I realize most people wouldn't care, but your comments made me curious, so I did a little original research and timed my copy of ABC's coverage. I started from the end of Sen. Kennedy's comments to the crowd. If you assume that Kennedy finished speaking at 12:15 PDT and was shot as 12:17, then the timing is as follows:

12:15:00 Kennedy finishes speaking; 12:17:00 Shooting; 12:21:44 Howard K. Smith relays report that Kennedy has been shot; 12:23:20 Live black and white footage of ballroom; 12:24:15 Chilling audio report from KABC's Karl George from the pantry area while Kennedy present, describes Kennedy's removal--picture is still of ballroom; 12:26:42 Live black and white footage from pantry area with Karl George reporting, Kennedy has been removed and other bodies are not shown.

ABC was the first to report the shooting, and it had some compelling interviews from the pantry. If you've seen the CBS and NBC footage (NBC's is available on hulu.com), you know that their footage was much more dramatic, but no one saw theirs for some time, because their color film had to be developed. Compson1 (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, on the question of the timing, the Time magazine article you use as a reference says that ABC had a news flash two minutes after the shooting. I was watching TV that night, having worked on the Kennedy campaign in California, and saw what must have been the ABC news flash and subsequent follow up which was very dramatic. If the flash had not occurrence while the program was still on air, I would have just gone to sleep not knowing of the shooting. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked through all the Time magazine articles in your references. It was this one: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900149,00.html that gives the ABC time sequesnce. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Some 6,000,000 American TV households, most of them in the West and not yet asleep, got a chance to follow the beginning live reportage.

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I corrected a couple of errors in my earlier comments. I don't mean to make a mountain out of a molehill, but Time's timing is incorrect. A have a recording of several hours of ABC's coverage beginning before Kennedy spoke, and ABC was not showing the Ambassador two minutes after the shooting. You may have been watching local coverage on the ABC affiliate, and it may have interrupted its broadcast to switch to ABC for what looked like a bulletin. On ABC's national broadcast, Smith signed off and they then held the studio shot for four and a half minutes while an announcer said, "Please stand by." During that time, ABC was waiting for a second report of the shooting to support information from its own people. Television was more careful then. The broadcast then resumed and Smith advised viewers: "Ladies and gentlemen, we've kept the air on because we've heard an alarming report that Robert Kennedy was shot in that ballroom at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles." Smith broke that news almost seven minutes after Kennedy finished speaking, about five minutes after the shooting. About a minute and a half after Smith first reported the shooting, ABC switched to a camera in the ballroom {not the pantry) and a minute later picked up audio from Karl George in the pantry. ABC definitely beat NBC on the air with the news (I can't time NBC precisely because my copy of NBC's coverage doesn't include Kennedy's speach, but 12:26 sounds about right for its first report of the shooting--four or five minutes after ABC), though NBC provided impressive coverage with its considerable resources in those days of Huntley-Brinkley, Frank McGee, Sander Vanocur, etc. Compson1 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have done such comprehensive research, then undoubtedly you are right. I, of course, just remember the effects on me and not the specifics that you have provided. Since Time is so wrong, perhaps you should not use it as a reference for the article as it is probably incorrect in other ways as well. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Flickr images

When you do an advanced search on flickr. Check the three boxes in the creative commons section at the bottom and it will isolate WP eligible photos. The best way to understand which individual license types are eligible for WP is to go to Wcommons. Click Upload file. Choose upload flickr. At the top there is an explanation of all license types.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have to have an account and be signed in to flickr? I don't see three boxes, say at http://www.flickr.com/photos/7450381@N05/2445704023/ How would I go about that, for example? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be signed in to do an advanced search but maybe you do. Do you see the advances search button?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see the button. I will have to try it out. Then you send a request, I gather from your reply on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain. Perhaps I will learn from what happens in that. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Cuba

— Navy  Blue  ^{formerly iDosh} 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle of editing

Hey I am still in the middle of revamping. I do sleep you know. It took me a while to find a source for the video sculpture. Also, when I revisited the fountain, I realized the water only spouts for 30 seconds so I had to find a source. I don't know where to put those two paragraphs at the end of selection of the artist. However, the last one had been in critical review where it did not belong. I am headed to the gym. I will get back to work in a couple of hours.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Crown comment

You voiced an opinion against choice #1, without saying which of the other three choices you feel is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you feel that there are any unresolved issues related to WP:WIAFA and am I near getting your support if there are not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a big problem with the prose. From my point of view, this article has more potential than the Trump Tower one, as it is innately more interesting. But you need someone to go in there and straighten out the prose. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

This if FAC3, I have been through 2 PRs. I am trying to get help. It does seem however, that you are concerned with stylistic issues more than grammatical ones. I have seen many an FAC get passed that could use stylistic improvement. Also, that is so vague a problem I am not sure if it is actionable. However, could you kindly strike or cap any of our banter which has resulted in a resolved concern. Please note you did not respond to my compromise American public fountain or to the bold CLARIFICATION in the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please include the talk page items in the FAC discussion. Some are actionable and some are not. I did not see a copyedit offer. Please point it out to me. Also note my clearer argument on community areas, which you have not responded to and about America/United States that you have not responded to. I think you may wish to cap the discussion on reworking the praise for the fountain and hope you agree with the rearrangement of American as well. I am not sure why you are against the Library of Congress convention on describing where the fountain is, but you continue to argue about whether describing its location is New York v. Chicago boosterism, which seems non-sequitur to me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to strike or cap your comments so I can know what outstanding issues you have with the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I only have about 45 minutes online. I just got back from a day of being Tony The Tiger at the beach with all my martial arts stuff. I am going to go downtown tonight to see the Grant Park Music Festival because it is being held at the Harris Theater (Chicago) tonight. I think Lollapalooza is using the Jay Pritzker Pavilion tonight. I hope to spend some time at Crown Fountain at night tonight. I have to jump in the shower in about 45 minutes. Maybe tonight or tomorrow I will spend more time. I don't know how extensive the new problems are.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything I don't get to by the top of the hour you can feel free to take a stab at.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some T-bar commentary in the discussion already. It does not have an article to explain it and I am not an engineer. It is refed by a citation that uses the term and that is about all I can say.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you still stand by this statement "sections have been mixed up and do not keep to topic."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you mixed up the section contents again, I have not read the article through. Let me rest up first. Also, wasn't there an editor who suggested something about the structure today? (I cannot find his comments on the actual FAC page, but I saw them on my watchlist. His name started with R. Seems like he had some good suggestions about combining some of the little sections. Did you follow his advice?) —Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Number formatting

If you see chart positions formatted incorrectly in the prose of any Featured Article, feel free to go ahead and fix them. I distinctly recall fixing the formatting in Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, but not everyone is familiar with the manual of style for chart positions, so occasional fixes need to be made. Also, important to keep in mind is that all numbers ten and lesser should be written out ("reached number two on the Billboard charts") unless in a series. Check out WP:MOS for other things you want to make sure are taken care of in Frank Zappa. I'll take a stab at restructuring the article sometime soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It turns out there is no consistant answer in MoS. I asked User talk:Epbr123, the MoS guru, and he is said there was not. He susggest asking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) so I did: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Question on #1 vs number one. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore

Thanks for your edits........Just 2 Questions

• Is it fine to have citation templates for all the refs instead of cite xxx templates
• If you check ref145 (^ Karnataka Coastal Project, Duraline Pipes Learning Centre, pp. 1, <http://www.duraline.in/newsletter/Q4%202004%20Newsletter.pdf>. Retrieved on 27 July 2008

.How should I make it ^ Karnataka Coastal Project, Duraline Pipes Learning Centre, p. 1, <http://www.duraline.in/newsletter/Q4%202004%20Newsletter.pdf>. Retrieved on 27 July 2008
replacing pp by p

This article is stuck at the FAC due to these minor issues. If you check WP:FAC the article doesn't even appear there. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk)

Hi Kensplanet,

• My understanding is that for FAC you must use either all citation templates for the refs, or all cite xxx templates, but that you cannot use both.
• On the pp vs. p, I believe you use p. if it is one page (e.g. p. 3) but if it is a range of pages, you use pp. (e.g. pp. 34–54) for the cite xxx. I assume it is the same for the citation.

Let me know if this helps. I'm not an expert on the citation template but perhaps I can help you figure it out. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK: Jones v. United States (1983)

On 11 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jones v. United States (1983), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Zappa FAC failed

Hi. SandyGeorge has closed the nomination. I made the request for a bit more time to do the legacy section, but the response (on SG's talk page) was that such additions are better donE outside an FAC. Well, I am of course disappointed, in particular by the endless type of comments on the lack of copyediting. You have done so much and others too, and theN still some editors JUST routinely throw off the remark about need for fresh eyes. I could take any FA and pick out ten sentences that needs copyediting if I would, so I think some was a bit quick on the trigger. On the other hand, there were not many offering support for the FAC, so the outcome was to be expected. I will finish the legacy section nevertheless, and then I think the article should be renominated quite soon.! --HJensen, talk 10:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(copy) I am so sorry to hear that. I don't understand the pile up of criticisms at the end of the FAC (hardly any until the end), with no allowance of time to fix the complaints. Your article was 100 times better than ones that routinely pass according to FAC formula and the cliques of supporters that favored article garnish. I think the level of sophistication is higher than 99% music articles. Much of the FAC critical time was spent on nonsense.

I personally have low opinion of the whole FAC process (as you may guess). However, I do urge you to complete the article (you really were so close!) and I will help you anyway I can to get that star. Just let me know and don't hesitate to ask. You are a wonderful person to work with and I have enjoyed it immensely. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Matisse, I can understand that you are frustrated and disappointed by the archival of the FAC nomination for Frank Zappa. You are doing your cause absolutely no good, however, in disparaging the FAC reviewers. We are only human, and, while I can't speak for all the reviewers, when I feel attacked by a nominator or article supporter, in the future I'm likely going to avoid articles where that person is involved. Why should I spend my time reviewing articles when if I say something someone disagrees with I'll be essentially attacked? Your comments maintaining that there is a clique/a cabal/a huge conspiracy of teenagers to trash excellent articles are insulting. Please assume good faith and remain civil. Constructive criticism is a good thing (give suggestions for improvement). Levelling baseless accusations is not. It may be helpful to avoid posting about FAC for a few days until you calm down. Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not just Frank Zappa, or primarily Frank Zappa. In fact, I will urge that editor not to resubmit it. I have been watching the process for quite a while, for a year at least, since the User:Zleitzen episode near two years ago. And for a while I helped a particular editor get a string of FAs. He had his supporters lined up, including admins, so there was never any problem with those. I have helped many editors get FAs. So I am not dumb about how the process works. Who did I attack now? You? It is not permissible to have critical feeling about the FAC process? It's not politically correct, are you saying, to point out that most articles are on pop culture, just on pop culture for the under 30. Feel free to avoid anything I have anything to do with in the future FAs. If I want to sabotage an article I will be sure to get involved. (I'm counting on you now to keep your word! It does explain why it's all so bland. Everyone is scared, it seems you are saying. And that rings true. I have seen the revenge in action. ) FAC is not a very welcoming place to outsiders. I gave up a while ago to be treated decently by FAC brass no matter how much work I put in. I have done a whole heck of a lot of copy editing for FAC. But no more. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I know little about your past experiences at FAC, and I'm sorry that they have apparently made you so bitter, but it's not right for you to be tarring all FAC reviewers as essentially immature, mean, ignorant, and led by an evil dictator. Reviewers have to put up with a lot of flak for offering an opinion even though the nominator is soliciting those opinions by nominating the article. Reviewers are volunteers just like the nominators, who review what they are interested in when they have time to review. I am not denying that FAC may be overdue for some changes, but changes usually don't come along as a result of a negativity campaign. Please, please, please, if you have constructive ideas on how to improve the process, offer them! I'll be more than happy to help you introduce workable change to the process, but first we need the improvement ideas. Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GAN and WikiHermits

Our discussion over the past few days has allowed me to clarify my thoughts about wikipedia, and hopefully will help you to see a positive and personally fulfilling way that you can continue to contribute as well. WikiDragons and WikiHermits both need caves to live in, and that's what I've found WikiProjects to be. You can make a far greater difference at GA than you ever could at FAC, which really has become an outstanding example of the law of diminishing returns. Subject specfic projects can help a great deal as well. I'd have left wikipedia in disgust ages ago had it not been for the anchor of the Greater Manchester project. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I am the project type. I looked at what seemed to be lists of projects; perhaps the geology, or law, or architecture projects. But in writing article, I really like to wander freely. My last projects, to which I am still attached, Cuba and the Caribbean, have now become political minefields. A geographical place, like you have, would be wonderful but I don't have one. I will look into this more. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

O.K. I looked at the list. Kind of Blue is a possibility (probably the easiest); United States v. LaRouche is a possibility, as I write a lot of legal articles, but the title is all wrong and would have to be changed; Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe is a possibility (but seems like it needs reorganization); Lake Toba; any of the hurricane articles. I want the result to be something calm and pleasant. What do you think? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's usually best to avoid any subject you know too much about, for two reasons. The first is that you won't be reading it like someone who's come to learn about the article, and the second is that you'll have your own opinions on the subject that you may be tempted to impose on the article. Paradoxically though, it should also be something that you have at least an educated interest in. Some types of articles have developed a well-defined structure, so it's pretty easy to review them against their own criteria as well as GA's. Hurricane articles fall into that category, so any of them ought to be pretty straightforward. I think you're right in your assessment of the Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe article. It's good stuff, but it still needs quite a bit of work. If I was choosing, I'd probably go for Lake Toba, as its eruption is a very important historical event that deserves a good article. Once again though I think there's maybe quite a bit still needing to be done there, so maybe best avoided for a first review. That leaves Kind of Blue. Like with hurricane articles, the format of that kind of article is pretty well-defined, so if it's something your interested in, then go for it. Looking only at the calm and pleasant scale, I'd probably plump for a hurricane article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'll do Hurricane Dean. I will see if I can follow the instructions to place it on review. (I am a dunce when it comes to following wikipeda directions about anything). Then I just write my comments about the article, following the criteria? I have been looking at what people write and it seems to vary enormously. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Choose your own style. I just write a bulleted list of issues I think need addressing, I'm not fond of the "official" templates some reviewers use. Good luck with Hurricane Dean, although I'm sure you won't need it, having been through the FAC fires. I'll be watching anyway, so what can go wrong? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much wrong with Hurricane Dean. I noted a few things and I might say something about some of the idiosyncratic wording at times, but really it is ready for FAC as far as I can tell. What happens now? (I left Plasticup a note on his page.) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice review, I told you the hurricane ones were generally easy. What happens now is that you put the article on hold, waiting for the the issues you raised to be fixed or refuted. How to do that's on the WP:GAN page. If you're stuck, give me a shout. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the copy editing. (The comma you stuck in I hesitated over and then decided to leave it out!) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My English teacher used to say "If in doubt then leave it out". What I say is, be bold, and bugger the consequences. :-) The only thing you've forgotten to do is to transclude your review into the article's talk page, which I've just done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that! Transclude is a mysterious word to me. Onward to another article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a mystery to me for a long time as well. But all it means in this case is adding {{Talk:Hurricane Dean/GA1}} to the end of the article's talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. You should also update the article's GA template to show that it's on hold, as I've done here. I can't believe that I ever tried to persuade you that the process was easy. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kind of Blue

That's a nice article, and another very competent review. Your FAC experience, painful though it may have been, is obviously paying dividends now. :-)

For me, one of the big differences between FA and GA, and one of its potentially more satisfying features, is the opportunity to roll your sleeves up and get stuck into the article yourself. So whereas you (quite rightly) drew attention to the {{cquote}} I'd just fix it, as I've done. Interestingly it hadn't been done right in the first place anyway. The citation requirement isn't quite so onerous either, so I don't expect to see a citation per statement, but one somewhere in the general area, perhaps at the end of the paragraph, for instance. For direct quotations though, you're quite right, exactly as at FAC. You drew attention in the review to a few examples, and there's that box with a quotation from Jimmy Cobb as well.

It's worth checking the links in the notes as well. Have you come across this tool?[1] At least two of the links look like they're dead. I've transcluded the review onto the article's talk page; not sure why the link at the top wasn't right, but I've fixed that now anyway. Another nice piece of work! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. You've forgotten to flag the article as being reviewed/on hold on the WP:GAN page. I know it seems like an awful lot to remember at first, but it gets easier. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a nice article. Unpretentious and direct. Thanks for that link checker. I though I had it somewhere but I guess I forgot about it. And thanks for your feedback. Its boosting my morale. Maybe I am not such a total washout! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're doing great, stick with it. The beauty of GA is that you're working with the editors, towards the common goal of a GA listing. I often get quite personally involved in a GA review, especially if it's been written by a non-native English speaker. Don't be afraid to unleash your copyediting skills. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the non-native English speaker articles also. Even on FAC I would take them on, copy editing the articles even though I knew there was no hope! Yes, I like this approach better. I enjoy copy editing more than coming up with a big list of faults. And the cooperative approach feels much better and less like I am a police officer or a school marm. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Will Dockery, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Mattisse, will you please check your e-mail and reply by the same! Shoovrow (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

urban survival syndrome

On 22 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article urban survival syndrome, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

endashes

You haven't been reverted in Kind of Blue and Let's Get It On, it's just that there are two ways of inserting ndashes. the first is the use the html code, as you did, but some people prefer to choose the dash from the ndash symbol itself, which is the first of the dashes you see under the Do not copy text from other websites ... warning underneath the edit box. The effect is the same identical in either case, just a matter of personal preference. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I won't waste time anymore on endashes. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you hadn't put the endashes in, then he wouldn't have been able to run his script converting the html entity to the ndash symbol "–", which is all that's happened. Some prefer it that way because it's fewer characters, but it amounts to the same thing whichever way it's done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It shows that an editor is the lowest of the low. My opinion counts for nothing and he can revert me. The bot and script masters run the place! I won't spend time on endashes any more. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't been reverted. The editor's has just opted to convert the ndashes to a slightly different format, that's all. It's exactly the same thing as the difference between & and &, i.e., no difference at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down on this issue, T-rex is not making further edits along those lines at the moment so there is no hurry. Some time away from the dispute may be useful. I have explained to T-rex that it is not acceptable for him to continually revert to his preferred version over an optional style issue. I believe that your version, as the stable one, is favored by the MOS in a dispute but I think a better resolution would be achieved if you let other users come in rather than becoming the "other party" in an edit war. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope you help me out on this. I have worked hard on endashes in several articles he has changed with his mass script with no discussion on the talk page. When I look in the edit window, I cannot tell which hyphens need changing and which are in his format. So I will not do any more endashes until this is settled. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kind of Blue. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Editor437 (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Just a quick note following your comments at WP:GAC, reviews are generally kept on hold for at least a week. I would give the initial nominator a little more time to address your queries. Peanut4 (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to leave it on hold. I was responding to a comment left under my "hold" that has since been removed. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Effects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico

Thanks for your GA review - it was much quicker than I expected! Looks like the backlog at GAN is almost gone. Plasticup ^T/C 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. It was a good article. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

Mattisse, thanks for the review. I'm going to get to it in the next 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Slogging my way through it. Lots of work to do. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and give it some more attention in the next two hours. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made some headway, but there's still more to do. Viriditas (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Mattisse. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Mount Hood

Hi there, could you finish the review ASAP? I have 2 other GANs to help and an FAC that is sort of struggling. Thank you, --Lord₪Sunday 13:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you take a look at it again? I think I have satisfied your requests. --Lord₪Sunday 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good work! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Rickey Henderson

Is this article on hold?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The last time I looked at it there were still uncited passages. However, glancing through it now, it looks like they have been fixed. The original nominator said he did not have time to work on the article, but a bunch of other editors have fixed it up. Looks like it meets GA. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One last problem is that in the last section, the time frame is not given. I stuck in "As of 2008" to the first paragraph, but all the records need to have a time frame. I considered renaming the whole section 2008 Career milestones or something like that. What do you think? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the forum reference. I also added a time frame to a couple of statements in the milestones section. I looked over the section, and it all seemed to clarify that the records are as of 2008. I'm a little bothered by the "Records" section, as several of the entries are unreferenced. Looking at the ones without references, though, they all seem to be listcruft that doesn't add anything to the article (Most Seasons by a non-pitcher since 1900???). GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of the non-notable entries. What else needs to be done? GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA2

Issues have been addressed Gary King (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Also if you've got a chance could you take a look at Welcome to Our Neighborhood for its GAN review? It's a similar article to the one you are currently reviewing. Gary King (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can do both if you can allay my concerns about the skimpiness of the articles, no legacy etc. I'm sure you can as I know you are very familiar with GA criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

These two articles are indeed short; however, I've worked with the two other editors of these articles and there isn't much else to add to them. There is not that much information available on them "out there"; online, in books, journals, magazines, newspapers, etc. Some people have added information in the past few weeks, but without reliable sources, and so they had been considered original research. I think the primary concern at hand is comprehensiveness, and in that case, we agree that they are comprehensive – we also agree that they are short; we try and add what we can when we find it. Gary King (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at the second one briefly, it seems a little more complete, describing the contents of the video some. But I get your point. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An AFD might indeed make sense for one or both of those articles, but I will leave that up to you. Gary King (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about the WTON article, you failed it because it lacks "critical reception, impact, or importance of this release". However, as I stated, the info isn't there because were lazy, it isn't there becuase I honestly do not think there is any. It contains the chart and sales info, so the only thing left would be reviews. But in 1999, without the internet we have today, how many magazines would review a VHS from somewhat known band, certainly not in the "mainstream" at that time, which contains two music videos and some interviews? There's not a lot there to review. I understand compared to most articles it is lacking, but I don't know what else we can do to it. Blackngold29 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated in reasons not to pass an article for GA: (from Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles)

1. It appears that the article is as good as it will ever get, and will never meet the standards. (Not every article can be a Good article. If the references to improve an article to Good article standards simply do not exist, then you should not overlook that part of the criteria.)
2. The editors of the article have obviously spent a considerable effort improving the article during the Good article review process, and even though it doesn't meet all the criteria, it is much better than it was when it was first nominated.

The article is not complete. Either the information is available because the album is notable and critical reviews and information about impact, critical reception or importance exist, or perhaps the article is as good as it can be but will never reach GA status. You are free to get a second opinion or have the article reassessed. I did solicit a second opinion before I made my decision.[2] —Mattisse (Talk) 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

thanks, been through after another editor (you?). My concerns were as you noticed the choice of words and wording. Ta Edmund Patrick – confer 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

People v. Beardsley

On 1 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article People v. Beardsley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just touching base

How are you enjoying your GA reviewing? It's a bit different from FAC, I'm sure you'd agree. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to get over a severe Wikipedia-phobia that I have developed. I have put so much into writing and editing here that seeing it for what it is has depressed me. I am forcing myself to edit to try and get over it. GA is more upbeat than FAC, less pointless nitpicking, but it does not remove the feeling that there is no meaning in this effort. I can't seem to get over a sadness and loss from the suspicion that I never will actually enjoy Wikipedia again. I thought I would at least get my DYK's to 100 to give me some feeling of accomplishment, not that many to go, but I don't think I will last. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Who can tell whether there will be lasting meaning in this effort or not? We're all flying on trust in a shared vision of freely available knowledge. The daily crap that most of us have to endure seems like it comes from those looking in the gutter, not at the stars. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Opabinia

Hi, Matisse. I'm looking forward to this as IMO this crittter was arguably the most important of the Burgess "weird wonders". I've responded to your initial comments. I've also taken the liberty of ordering the comments under sub-headings, in case we wind up having a lot - hope you don't mind. -- Philcha (talk) 08:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, since you have followed the directions regarding heading levels! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Matisse. I had a feeling it was going to be fairly smooth, because Opabinia is a more focussed, tidy subject than many in paleontology. Give me a call if I can help you any time. -- Philcha (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. It is a very nice article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette

Thanks for your useful input into Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette. The extra pair of eyes and thoughts were very valuable. It passed . Ta. Edmund Patrick – confer 11:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: SummerSlam (1992)

That's not my article. I think you confused me with the other Gary :) On a side note, feel free to review some of the articles that I nominated :D Gary King (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:10 Hygiea/GA1

I went through your comments. How does it look now? Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks great! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Rosetta@home

Just wanted to thank you for such a thorough GA review! Emw2012 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I enjoyed the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dwain Chambers

Cheers for choosing to review the article; I'm fully aware how much time an article of this size takes to read and review. It appears the article failed FA for no clear reason other than that the reviewers there lacked the time to fully assess it. user:Giants2008 suggested that perhaps the prose could be improved in parts. Internet research is all I've used as there are no books about the sprinter yet. I'll be doing minor prose fixes here and there on the article but it should largely remain static. Hope you have a good read! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read the FAC review and agree that it was unclear why it was not passed. There seem to be a few minor prose issues. I may fix a few as I see them, if you don't mind!. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the review, hope you enjoyed the article and any more suggestions would be very welcome. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me up to speed, where is the debate about athletes and personal life sections? I couldn't find anything relating to this at all. I'll certainly let my opinion be know of the naivety of the idea! I think the blend of athletic achievements and the most significant "personal life" material makes for engaging articles. In my opinion a wholesale split across the board is a little baseless given that there are so few quality athletic articles and an absence of a solid reason to create such a divide of content. Bizarre. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Career_and_personal_lives. I entered an opinion on a review of another article on an athelete.[3] —Mattisse (Talk) 13:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Human bonding

Hi Mattisse, I wonder if you could have a look this diff on Human bonding. The guy seems to have wiped out just about every theory on the subject. Some of it may be crap, but I can't beleive it all is. --Salix alba (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is one of those articles that should not be under "Psychology" but is nonetheless. Any article that has to use dictionary definitions is suspect. Then throw in some out-of-date psychoanalytic thinking. It is not a professional article and never will be. I like the part about bail bondsman! There is a whole collection of articles around "attachment" and "bonding" that are not professional and have very POV agendas. I do not care what happens to them. They are hopeless and ripe for whomever to stick in whatever they want. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Decipherment of rongorongo FAC

Hi Mattisse,

If you're interested, I've nominated for FAC the second half of the FA rongorongo, which you had commented on during its nomination. It's at Decipherment of rongorongo. kwami (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I don't know if I have the stomach to get involved in the bickering of FAC. I'll keep my eye on it. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No bickering so far. It's eerily quiet. kwami (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The FAC crowd mostly review their own articles and ignore others. If yours continues to be ignored, I will enter in. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Apple River Fort

I have attempted to address your comments, just let me know if there is anything else you would like to see tweaked or altered. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And I am glad we could forget our harsh interactions of the past. I am sorry I was like that. Life is chaotic, sometimes I guess it spills over onto the wiki. It has been a pleasure working with you during this GA review. :-)--IvoShandor (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. I can't even remember what it was about! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Me neither. --IvoShandor (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Radek Zelenka image

Yeah, checking up on the permission status of that image has been on my ToDo list forever, and I forgot about it when I started the GAN. I'll remove the image until I hear back from the actor (he has got a blog to interact with fans, and he was the one to post the image there originally). – sgeureka ^t•c 21:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Yellow"

Yeah, its fine. Thanks for the help. I actually passed the article without so much copyediting. I'm working on the suggestions. --Efe (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm done. Please have a reread. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

All done Mattisse. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for passing the article to GA and for the guidance, especially in refining the prose. I really suck at prose, most especially when I hurry things. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I really enjoyed the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are still lots to add in this article. Well, Coldplay is so talkative, and I salute them, I also have lots to write. Will it be ok to call you for some help when its on FAC? --Efe (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Generally I dislike the nitpicky FAC but I am willing to help you out with copy editing. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Efe (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa again

Hi. I have finally installed the promised section on Zappa's legacy. Comments are most welcome! Cheers. --HJensen, talk 21:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not read through your complete article again with its added Legacy section. However, I am convinced upon reading the new Legacy that the article is excellent (based on my past readings of the rest of the article) and definitely FAC quality. Are you going to resubmit it? I can do a copy edit if you are. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is resubmitted now. Any comments and suggestions are most welcome. Most of the main body is unchanged, so it already reflects your detailed copyedits. I mainly edited the lead to account for the legacy section (and the FA requirements - there were a few things in the old lead that was not mentioned in the article. That is taken care of now). Best, --HJensen, talk 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Legacy section is a great addition and I can see now that it was needed. You have done very good work and I have registered my Support of its FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --HJensen, talk 19:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Execution of Lucy and James Sample

Hi Matisse. I was wondering if you could fix the dates to match up with the current MOS in Execution of Lucy and James Sample, like you did for Apple River Fort. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. --IvoShandor (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Done! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you! --IvoShandor (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem at Bad Axe massacre, I left for a bit, come back, and they have instituted this crazy pain in the neck to the MOS. Grrr. Wish I'd never linked all those dates.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again Matisse. :-) --IvoShandor (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and if you have any comments on the article itself I am soliciting opinions, I am hoping to wade through the FAC gauntlet with it soon. Thanks again. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Homer's Night Out

Thanks a lot for reviewing, I have made some edits now. :) Also, how can you not have seen a single Simpsons episode? Have you been living under a rock the past 20 years? ;) TheLeftorium 06:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! —Mattisse (Talk) 15:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN: Metis (moon)

Hi, and thanks for the feedback. I posted some replies. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Anarchy Online

Wasn't my article, I just nominated it for the guy after he accidentally went about it wrong.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Inform User:Sebquantic about the subject, as he was the original nominator and should probably be watching the page anyway.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that I've fixed all the issues that you and the peer reviewers brought up about the article. Generally, smaller paragraphs were merged, "words to avoid" were fixed, the gameplay was elaborated, other subjects like the expansion packs were clarified, and other fixes. I added a few lines in the development section about the game's impact, although its hard to find more sources for that type of thing. The article in its current state is the closest I can get it to a GA nominee in my mind. Feel free to make your decision when you have time. --Sebquantic (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

GAN

Thanks for your review on AT&T Plaza. The article nominator has expanded the article, but I am not yet quite sure if the article should pass. Your comments and opinions on the article would be much appreciated. The article Louvre Abu Dhabi is also in need of a review. If you have time, could you review this article? Thanks in advance, --Jordan ^Contribs 07:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My reluctance regarding this article is that it has so many quotations for the length of the article content. Another review with less hesitations regarding this issues would be better. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. I've nominated an article for GA status: Louvre Abu Dhabi. I was wondering if you might me able to review it and leave me a few suggestions. However, I have to warn you that it quite a few quotations for the length of the actual article... Your feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks, --Jordan ^Contribs 14:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Amerie - 1 Thing - CD 2 cover.jpg

To let you know, Image:Amerie - 1 Thing - CD 2 cover.jpg, on which you previously commented during the GA for 1 Thing is at IfD. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. That was the second Fair use, wasn't it? So there was really not a justification. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!!!

Hi Mattisse! Thanks for the support for the Zappa article that have now become FA, and thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you very, very much for your major work on the previous FAC. You made tons of valuable copy edits and was energetic and supportive all the way through the process. You are a major asset for Wikipedia, and I am exceptionally grateful for your collaborative efforts. I hope that someday I can "repay" your kindness. (I had thought of awarding you some barnstar, but I never really have understood that stuff, and I felt that some honest words were more appropritate.) All the best, --HJensen, talk 10:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It was a true pleasure. I would be happy to copy edit for you again, if I am still around. Although I consider myself a copy editor, I am withdrawing from such activity on Wikipedia. But I certainly would help you out any time! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

aXXo: may I comment after eavesdropping?

Please forgive me for eavesdropping; just now went to Malleus's talk and happened upon your aXXo thread. Replied here Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your encouragement and open mindedness. I just now noticed your comment or I would have answered earlier. Perhaps I will ask you to review it! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania IX

Thanks for offering to review the article. I addressed the concern you brought up. When you have a chance, please let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I like your articles. They are fun to read. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Manu Sharma

Hi Mattise, thanks for the copyedits to the page. I've also clarified on the terrorising villagers bit on Talk:Manu Sharma. Do let me know if it makes sense. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that fixes it. Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've delisted Manu Sharma. It was, in my opinion, way short of the GA criteria. If you don't agree with my decision to delist then we can take it to WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I'll finish up the ones I am working on and then won't do any more. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really believe, on reflection, that Manu Sharma met the GA criteria? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that I disagreed. I just said that I will not do any more because I do agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not take a bit of a rest from reviewing and copyediting, and get back to a bit of article writing? Something that you feel interested in? It's too easy to get sucked into the black hole that is wikipedia. Sometimes you've got to be selfish. Don't burn yourself out with reviewing; do something that you want to do from time to time. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. I have lost absolutely any desire to write articles. Odd, because for two years all I did was joyfully write articles or copy edit for the FACs of others. I was blissfully unaware of the endless talk page socializing and policy discussions which I now see consumes the time of most FAC editors. It was horribly unfortunate that I learned about what goes at FAC behind the scenes.

I will never experience the joy of contributing to Wikipedia again. Now Wikipedia seems to be all about winning political power and collecting points. I am not interested in that. GA was a last ditch effort to be interested in something at Wikipedia. I don't need Wikipedia to be my social life so I will do like others and endlessly voice my opinion everywhere until I get really bored and find something in real life to take up the idle moments that Wikipedia consumes. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism

Thank you very much for your comments. Although I am not the primary author, I will work on your suggestions.Taprobanus (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I hope you don't mind, but I did copy edit it, many for Mos issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Manasa

Thanks for the review. I have addressed your concerns.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed most of your concerns.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have made necessary amendments. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass, the article was greatly improved by you directly as well as your comments indirectly. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS

Hello! I left a message for you at WT:MEDRS: [4].

If you don't like my offer, and would still prefer to stay away for now, I can understand that. If so, please remember that you can always come back whenever you like!

If instead you choose to try a little longer, that would be excellent, of course. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered on WT:MEDRS discussion page. [5] —Mattisse (Talk) 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

....?

Why did you add {{GAR}} to Carrier Air Wing Six? It was just promoted yesterday!!! —the_ed17— 17:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine because the article ought not to have been promoted, as it is largely a list. GA is not for lists, WP:FL exists for lists. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That is the reason. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Phillips' Sound Recording Services

I think I have sorted all the problems.--andreasegde (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Re: AXXo

I'm still working on it. Should be ready by Thursday at the latest. Gary King (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I was just checking! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:AXXo/GA1 Gary King (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pass! If you've got time perhaps you are interested in reviewing The New York Times for GAN? Gary King (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the image that was in the article, User_talk:Elcobbola#Is_a_logo_completely_made_up_of_text_copyrightable.3F. Gary King (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Heya, if you get the chance could you review The New York Times? It's been up at GAN for over three weeks, and it's my only remaining GAN. It'd appreciate it a lot! Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll consider it. Having read the NYTimes daily since I was a child and worshipped it, for the last ten years I have lost all respect for it. The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller incidents (among others) finalized it for me. Now I dislike the the Nytimes, so it is not fun reading an article about it. That's why I avoided your question before, but I will consider it if you get desperate. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FACR

Mattisse/Archive 16, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rosetta@home

Stop! You're messing up the references. We do not use first names. We use et al if there are six or more authors. You're wiping out changes I just made, and it's messing things up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I'm done. I kept getting edit conflicts, and I kept losing my edits, and I couldn't figure out why. You really should use this tool. It formats the citations almost perfectly (it makes errors now and again). We do not use full names, and we use last name followed by first name and middle name initials. For example it would be Jones AB, Smith CD, Thomas EF. Commas between names, but not between first and last names. et al is used only when there are 6 or more names. The Diberri tool figures it out perfectly. Why are we anal about this? Partially if we're going to have well-done FA articles, then references should be consistent. Also, it saves space. Putting every name makes the article larger, if there are a lot of references. I think you put in the comment about edited books. If you did, drop me a line, and I can show you how to work with it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sagara Sanosuke

Thanks for the review. My doubt is if there is additional work to do. I solved all the problems you mentioned but I thought it was strange not to leave the review on hold with only those problems. Could you tell me the other things? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I will look at your article again tomorrow. (Too tired now!) Maybe the article is fine now. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So?Tintor2 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I did some other stuff you mentioned.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks a lot for your help. It bothers me not being to copyedit articles since Im still studying English. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Agrippa (an article of the good?)

Yo Mattisse, the remaining nits have been picked and the article awaits your final judgement. Regards, the skomorokh 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been passed as I'm sure you know by now! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40,000

Thanks for your review. An independent look at this article was exactly what it needed. Thanks for all your suggestion and criticism there. Protonk (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It was a pleasure! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hearby award you the Barnstar of Diligence for your tireless copy editing of Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism article. Taprobanus (talk) 02:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I learned a lot from the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Panic of 1907

Mattisse--thanks much for the helpful review and edits at Panic of 1907. I need to be a lot more careful with my commas. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and am very happy with how it's turned out! --JayHenry (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note of encouragement, and thanks also for your help reviewing and copy-editing Panic of 1907! It really turned out great, I think! I probably am being a bit pessimistic... I'll probably try to tackle LTCM at some point soon, even though it will be challenging. So many articles on Wikipedia... so little time! --JayHenry (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ain't We Got Fun?

I share most of your concerns about this article, particularly the number and use of long quotations. The relatively large quotes from Orwell I find especially dubious. Ain't We Got Fun? was written in 1921, but The Road to Wigan Pier was written 16 years later, in 1937. So Orwell quoted a few lines from the lyrics of the song? So what? I'd like to see some material on the economic background that existed when the song was written, not during the 1930's depression. I'd also like to see an actual book source given, so that I'd feel more confident the editors appreciated the context of the quotations by having at least skimmed through the book.

As you also say, there seems to be a lot of missing information on context in vaudeville, orchestration, circulation, popularity, cover versions ... not a GA IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Just wanted to make sure by biases weren't getting in the way and clouding my judgment. I have written (I counted up) 55 song articles on Wikipedia, so I am familiar with normal structure, content and focus of song articles. Chalk me up as a person that will vote for you when you run! —Mattisse (Talk) 14:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You're very kind, but I won't be running again until Hell's bid to host the Winter Olympics is successful. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche criminal trials

Thanks for your copy-editing on LaRouche criminal trials. You have a good eye for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It is hard to follow all the complications in the story, so I was hoping I wasn't doing more harm than good! Glad to hear you approve. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GA question

Hi, Mattisse! I wanted to submit an article for GA, but I got it peer reviewed. Here's how it was BEFORE, and here's how it is AFTER. Is it better? I'd like your opinion. Thanks a lot! A _talk 13:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is better. I'll add some comments to the Wikipedia:Peer review/Pride & Joy (comics)/archive1. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and input! A _talk 23:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

GANs

The New York Times was reviewed (and passed at the same time) a few days ago, so don't worry about that :) As for GAN, I've got two short ones there right now (Half-Life 2: Lost Coast and Half-Life 2: Survivor), if you want something to review ;) Gary King (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Eyes Without a Face

Thanks for reviewing it! I'm going to do some cleaning up like you suggested tomorrow. Thanks again! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I updated the information need on Eyes Without a Face as you requested. Thanks for taking the time to review the article, and feel free to tell me to make any more additions to it! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! My First GA! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a pleasure. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Lafayette

Hi Matisse, about 5 1/2 weeks ago you reviewed Marquis de Lafayette for GA class. I thought you may be interested that I have nominated it for FA. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget...?

Talk:Carrier Air Wing Six/GA2. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I am confused over what is happening. I should go ahead and fail the article for GAR. I guess I dropped the ball. I wanted to suggest that the editor of the article might get more help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and Featured Lists - Military and military history for help/advice/review of your article. It really does not meet the GA criteria, in my opinion. Is that what you mean? That I forgot to complete the failing? I will go ahead and do it now. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Matisse - I just saw your post on the review page, and I will respond to it in just a moment. Before you take this article to GAR, would you please consider giving the lead editor and myself time to read your comments, discuss them, and perhaps act on them? After reading your comments, I find that I agree with several of your points, and I will post a reply to that effect on the page in just a minute. However, I believe that this can probably be fixed without going to GAR, if you will be patient for a little while. The lead editor and myself are both active editors, so I promise it won't be too long! If you wish to informally bring in other editors to comment, I would welcome that, but I ask you to please hold off on a formal process. Thanks in advance. Dana boomer (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course I will do that. But do you know how long this article has been at GA and how many very good editors got their brain tangled up by it and finally refused to pass it? This is mind numbing. I have tried to be understanding regarding the editor, and at least he/she has finally admitted it is pseudoscience after a year. In my opinion, it is unethical and very misleading to mix the pseudoscience with legitimate medical/psychological information the way it has been done in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being patient. I've just posted my replies to your comments on the talk page, as well as a comment asking Fainite to reply ASAP. Just as an FYI, I'm going to be going to bed in a few minutes, so I won't respond to any comments that are made. I honestly thought the article was informative, and although a bit technical, not horribly hard to read, but I understand that this is after the work of several reviewers before myself. Overall, as far as prose and referencing goes, this article seems to be fairly good, but I can definitely see your points (now that they have been pointed out to me :P) regarding content. Dana boomer (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Tomorrow. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles/recent

Please do not add delisted articles (with strikethroughs) to the recent GAs list. The list is for new GAs ONLY; it is inappropriate and misleading to add delisted GAs to the list. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't realize the practice had changed. I won't do it again. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it never was an established practice to add delisted GAs to that list in the first place. I'm not sure who "started" it. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Delisting

Also, when you delist an article from WP:GA, you need to cite the reasons for delisting. All you did for the Carrier Air Wing Six article was slap a delistedGA tag on it with no actual description or reasons for why you delisted it. I do agree with your decision, however, and have added comments here.

In addition to reasons, if the article uses the {{ArticleHistory}} template, as well as update any wikiproject class ratings from class=GA to class=B, you need to update that as well. Failing to do so does not remove the article from the GA categories.

It might be best if you reviewed some articles at WP:GAR for awhile to get the hang of the delisting criteria and process instead of boldly delisting,... Dr. Cash (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't understand the directions on the GAR page. I did not realize it was a GAR in the beginning. I am not sure how that slipped in as I thought it was a GA and it was completed weeks ago. There was a understanding with the editor, and he posted to me today that I had not closed the GA review. I had fill out a review page which is linked in the delisting template. I can restore it to the talk page, if that is what you mean. I will do that. I simply cannot understand the template directions and will never voluntarily do an independent GAR. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am quite fine with just doing GA reviews as the process is clear there. As I said, I have no wish to get involved with GAR where the process is not clear to me -- and I have read the directions over and over. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my delisting comments and linked the articlehistory template to yours. Thanks for clarifying that. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual GARs are a minefield, best to stay well clear. ;-) Dr Cash is not entirely correct in his advice to you above though. Wikiproject class ratings are nothing at all to do with GA ratings. Wikiprojects are at liberty to use whatever ratings they like, including GA, but that has nothing to do with the GA process. So when you delist an article you ought not to alter any wikiproject ratings. That's the responsibility of the projects themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The 'GA' class rating for wikiprojects should be used similar to the 'FA' class rating for wikiprojects; that is, for FA and GA articles only. If a GA is delisted, it should be demoted back to B, in the same way that if an FA is delisted, it is likewise demoted back to B. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For reasons I've already stated above, it is Malleus that is incorrect. GA and FA class ratings in wikiprojects are NOT to be used for non-GA or non-FA articles. Period. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you that is incorrect Dr Cash. FA is "protected" in so far as its star is concerned, but that's it. Projects are are at liberty to use GA to mean whatever they want it to mean. Period. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song GAR

This is just a note to say that I have set up a GAR for Brenda Song here. This would seem the right way to air any differences that there may be concerning that article's recent GA review. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I know how difficult it is to try and rise above some of the misguided and overly personal criticism that masquerades as rational discussion on this site, but take heart from the fact that Brenda Song is much improved now as a result of your effort in providing the second opinion. The biggest problem that I see with GAR is that its purpose is not always as clear as it ought to be. It is too often not an assessment of whether a review was carried out properly or not, but a sick bed for malcontents to take their articles to in an attempt to circumvent a GAN. Just look at how long the present crop of GARs have been hanging around. Is the discussion really about whether the articles were reviewed correctly or not? I don't think so. If you haven't already seen it, Ireland's GAR is a good case in point. An article that ought never to have been listed in the first place being resuscitated in an attempt to prove that I'm an incompetent. But, as one of the few decent administrators said to me recently, "... we all contribute here knowing we're surrounded by nut jobs, dumbasses and children. You can't be surprised when stupid shit happens to you, and if you edit thinking 'It'll never be me,' you deserve to be the next." You're doing a great job. I think so, you think so. What does it matter what anyone else thinks? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen what is going on. No different than FAC. The Ireland article discussion is just a lower form (not so coated with egregious literary sophistication and pseudo witticisms) of the FAC discussions where the object is to go on and on, dragging things out to make sure nothing about FAC is changed so no one's power base is rattled. It is called "putting out fires". Power is used to protect those people who are useful because they do what they are told; this furthers personal interests, right or wrong. That an admin would vandalize, an admin whose job it is to keep FAC histories straight, would vandalize a GA page history repeatedly, and an editor, who is normally so very judgmental of everyone else, would rush to get it fixed shows there are no values here. It is all about control. Disgusting and poisonous to FAC and now that attitude has been brought to GA and poisoned the well there. The Attachment therapy got passed because its editor was encouraged during the GA review by an FAC intruder (who jumped into the GA review process, just before the decision was made to pass) and declared the article close to FAC. Actually, it is pathetic. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy is a pretty poor article, I agree. I'd be inclined to let the editors take it to FAC though, if they're so convinced it meets the criteria. Let them find out for themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The trouble is that I have ethics. If the subject matter were different I would agree. Besides, you would be surprised at some of the articles that pass FAC when certain people have an investment. SandyGeorgia never forgave me for weighing in against an article by the same author on more or less the same subject. I have the email from her to prove it. How many of her boys are willing to be penalized in such a manner? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't demonise SandyG; she's doing a very difficult job as best she can, and I think she does it pretty well. I certainly wouldn't want that job. Would you? You ought to look through some of the absolute horrors that Raul654 let through before SandyG took over. I understand your objections to the article, and I largely share them. But the question now is, where can those concerns most effectively be expressed? I'd suggest that's FAC rather than GAR. If the article isn't presented at FAC any time sooon then GAR it has to be. Think Machiavelli. Which course of action is most likely to lead to the outcome that you're hoping for? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

She is not a saint. She is doing it out of her own neediness, from wherever it comes. I can only hypothesize why she has such a great need to control so much and have Wikipedia be such a huge part of her life. It is not normal, even for addicted Wikipedians. She is a driven woman. She cannot possibly have much of a real life. It appears she requires a lot of contact with others and a high level of positive reinforcement (praise, expressions of needing her, thankfulness) and on a frequent basis, a level probably not achievable for her in real life. She complains frequently, although she has flat out denied that she ever complains. I would not want that job, but I don't have her needs. If the job were so very difficult and undesirable, then she would not resist any and all suggestions, attempts etc. to modify the process. She has blocked every idea that would change her role in the least. Further, she gets involved in discussions and comments on talk pages that are gratuitous and accomplish no particular purpose. Sometimes it seems she is just filling time, like she has nothing else to do. She needs to be needed. For whatever reason, she seems not to be able to let go of any part of what she does now. In fact, she is increasing her territory. Perhaps the people in her real life don't tolerate her controlling behavior the way all the kids at wikipedia do. After all, she is getting her rocks off playing footsy with a bunch of teenagers most of the time. And some of her little prodigies have ditched her, once they got their admin role on her pushing for them. She has to work hard for her emotional supper.

Re Attachment therapy, I have strongly listed my objections and the person who passed the article agrees with them. He didn't know the subject matter, but once I pointed out the problems he quickly caught on and feels bad. He has brought the problems to the editor's attention, but the editor has not responded so far. I will see what he does. If I list it at GAR, SandyGeorgia and company will probably interfere again. I will list my objections. If GAR has no balls, then I will find something else to do besides GA. If GA is that pathetic, then why bother with it further? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. If you take the article to GAR I'll certainly be pitching in on your side. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The other review asked me for some time to try to work with the editor and I agreed. After than, I probably will take it to GAR. So I thank you if you support my efforts, as you carry a lot of credibility in general, and you are about the only person that seems able to make SG back off. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am probably one of the few remaining WP:WikiDragons. I have no credibility though, and absolutely no influence over SandyG, trust me. I just say what I think. Take it or leave it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

Matisse thats hardly fair just to say there's no response in 1 day. I have posted a response and explained I'm very busy today and tomorrow but will get to it on Friday. I do actually work for a living you know. Fainites ^barley 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have consulted an experienced GAR editor. I may start an individual GAR in which I list my concerns. You will have a little time to address them. I am very concerned about the ethical implications of having the article with its current information on Wikipedia. I am shocked, frankly. I will list my concerns and you can address them. If you want, I can strip the article of the inappropriate material. Then, all you will have to worry about is the proper referencing of the material that is left. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the articles been listed for GAN and then a second opinion for months. I'm quite happy to address your concerns - just not the second you express them. I hope to have time to look at it on Friday. Fainites ^barley 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of that. Unfortunately, there was an edit conflict. Just as I was listing my objections, the article was being passed. I would have listed my objections sooner, but frankly I did not think the article had a chance of being passed, so I waited. The problem is that it is now listed as a GA. I know that an article can be delisted immediately when it is inappropriately passed, as I have seen it happen many times. This article as it is should not be represented on Wikipedia as a GA. You are presenting a great deal of confusing information to the general reader, some of it quite misleading. That is my concern. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re. From Mattisse

(copied over from my talk page:) Mattisse, please believe me that I had no intention of pre-determining the outcome of the GAR. As I said, I hadn't even read the article with any great attention when I put it up for GAR. I then read it, and said that in my view it passed. I could well be wrong: I'm willing to be put right.

In saying that the prose was OK but not great, I was thinking precisely of WP:WIAGA which requires of a Good Article that "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct." This is a lesser hurdle than the "professional" quality required of an FA. To say this is not a criticism of GA.

Now, again, I could well be wrong with my understanding of the current standards at GA. I have done plenty of GA reviews in my time, but not recently. This is why I pinged Geometryguy, an uninvolved editor who has great experience with GA, whose views I respect enormously. More generally, the point of GAR is to seek comments from the broader community.

Again, if I (or anyone else) wanted to ride roughshod over the GA process, we'd simply have reviewed the article and passed it forthwith. But no: my purpose in putting the article up for GAR was to defuse the conflict, and get a broader spectrum of views.

The purpose was also to separate out the question of the article review from the issue of the block. At GAR, we're judging the article, not the editor (or even the reviewer).

I'm sorry if for you this experience has been "horrible." I certainly have had no intention to "attack" or "bully" you, and indeed have not attacked or bullied you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you involved Geometryguy. It was a set up No wonder he deleted my comments from the GAR. He is part of this protective ingroup. SandyGeorgia contacts you because, one of her favs gets blocked for vandalizing the article history. You take over and summon another of the family for an "objective" view. SandyGeorgia's comments were completely dismissive of GA. Then she goes on to give reasons that are not true, and that show a misunderstanding of the GA criteria. I explain the criteria. and Geometryguy deletes them. So the unpleasant, demeaning comments of SandyGeorgia are allowed to misrepresent GA with no correction. Makes sense now. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Mattisse... How about assuming good faith!? My ping of Geometryguy was not a "set up." I can hardly think of anyone else who is better versed in GA processes. And he is certainly not someone who is dismissive of GA. (Nor, incidentally, am I.) This is not some kind of conspiracy. Everything here is above board, and everything I've done is to clear the air, not to bully or to demean or whatever else. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not basing this on one instance. This is a pattern I have been observing for quite a while, at least more than a year. This is the second example of this sort of thing in the last few days. In fact, it is the third example, if I count the FAC editor interjecting into a GA review that the article was almost on FAC, causing the article which multiple editors had agonized over for months because it was such a mess, to be promoted right away. It is an article that never should have been promoted. It is misleading and confused, and the editor that promoted it now agrees. But what to do now. It needs a massive amount of work. It has been edited basically by one person with over 900 edits. Obviously the GAR would be a nightmare because of the same interference and conflict of interest that plagued this one. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied over from my talk page:) Well, again, I'm sorry that you're unwilling to assume good faith. I have nothing at all to do with whatever other article you're alluding to here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you did not. I am merely remarking on a systematic pattern that I have observed. I did not mean to imply it was you. I never thought that although I knew you were on the radar. I am talking about a systematic pattern of behavior utilizing many other editors, as needed, for the occasion. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Song second opinion

For the record, Mattisse, your second opinion was fine, and I have no complaint with you about this, or as far as I know about anything else. Gimmetrow 22:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Gimmetrow. I was really just trying to be helpful and seems to have been taken the wrong way. So I appreciate your feedback. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, your involvement in the second opinion was fine. I would have discussed some of the points had time been allowed, but that's past. As far as I knew we were on good ground before this happened, and it would be nice if it could stay that way. Gimmetrow 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, we are on good ground. (I was a little annoyed at everyone else!) I agree that it was surprising that the fail came so quickly after the improvement suggestions were listed, and I certainly would have been willing to discuss the points with you. I confess that I have flipped out in the past over petty things also (like a bot tagging my articles 30 seconds after creation as copyvio because they referenced Supreme Court decisions published on the web) so I understand your reaction. Glad you have recovered your good nature so quickly! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

First of all, to comment after reading the above discussion - I didn't pass the attachment article to GA status simply because SandyGeorgia had made a comment about the article being on a path to FA. I was willing to bend a little on one of my comments (regarding citations in the lead) because I didn't want the editor to have to put the citations back in at FAC after pulling them out for me at GA, when in reality it wasn't a bit deal. Overall, I think it is a very nice article (and this is coming from someone who, as I've said before, had very little knowledge in the field). It nicely described the subject, and left me with a clear understanding of the difference between the pseudoscience of attachment therapy and the mainstream therapies that are more commonly (and properly) used. I don't believe that one editor doing most of the work on the article should immediately make you suspicious of that article. I do a lot of solo work on some of my articles, but that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to see someone else's point of view when they pop it onto the talk page.

Now, onto the content you (and I) want removed. From the response that Fainite made to to our comments, it seems that they are more than willing to see our POV. Just because someone is busy in RL and can't get to something until the weekend is not a reason to immediately assume that they are stalling or not wanting to change the article. Let's give this editor a few days to work on the article, especially after their fairly positive response (agreeing with us, politely asking clarification questions, etc) that they gave in their initial reply. At the moment, I am more than happy to give Fainite a few days and see what happens. The article can always be taken to GAR later...it is not a danger to anyone right at the moment, and it is actually a better example of GA-level writing and referencing than many other articles currently listed on the GA page. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And just FYI, I'm a she. Dana boomer (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I just saw (and responded to) your initiation of a GAR on this article. I am disappointed that you did not give Fainite more time to respond to your concerns before submitting this article to GAR. When you request that editors make major changes to the article (seemingly without warning, as you did not post your concerns in the GAR review, even though the article had been at GAN for over two months and tagged for 2nd review for over a month), you really should give the editor more than a day to respond, and when they ask for a couple of days to make the changes, some leeway should be granted. Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(copied from response on editor's page)

I consulted with an experience GAR editor who also has degrees in psychology. His opinion was to put it up for GAR now, sharing the concern that the problems were massive and that the one editor had lost perspective. It took me over an hour just to figure out the heading structure and attempt to figure out roughly what the sections contained. The GAR process is meant to be constructive and lasts a long time. In the first part, editors offer suggestions and also help to fix the article. It is only when the conclusion is reached that the article cannot be fixed enough to remain GA that the process moves to the second stage. In that stage, editors vote whether to delist or not. The outcome may well be to keep it as a Ga article. This is a very slow process and can last months. I did this because I think the editor is too close to the article and cannot possibly do it alone. Here is a way to get the constructive input from many editors. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I think you may be confusing the GAR process with the FAR process. The GAR process has only one step - the editors vote on whether the article should be kept or delisted. If you read some of the other reviews on the reassessment page, you will see that there is no two step process. The reviews may be closed by anyone, and the criteria for closing are, and I quote, "Reassessment discussions...should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the article was listed here. All articles should be listed for at least 7 days, unless there is a procedural mistake and a GAR is not appropriate." This means that, rather than lasting for months, as you say, they last generally someplace between a week and a month, and if they last over a month, they can be closed automatically.

Now, since you've put it up for GAR already, there's nothing really I can do about it, except for expressing (as I already have) my desire for a brief waiting period to give Fainite some time to work on the article, as they already said they would when they get a few spare minutes. Just because someone says that they are busy with RL and can't work on something until the weekend doesn't mean they are disregarding your comments, and just because someone is the main editor to an article doesn't mean that they have lost their perspective. In this case, it probably means that no-one else cares about the article. From a look at the talk page, there have been no major disputes, and from reading previous talk page discussions, Fainite has actually been quite active in keeping NPOV pro-AT information out of the article. I really think you may be over-reacting to this, but as I said, there's nothing I can do now that you've posted the GAR. However, that's just my opinion, and perhaps I'm wrong, so I hope that you and Fainite can manage to sort out your differences. Perhaps, just perhaps, if someone else constructively offered to help edit the article (rather than threatening with GARs and delistings and calling their work POV), the editor would be most appreciative, considering not many other people seemed to be interested in helping on the run-up to GA status. Just a thought... Dana boomer (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever mistakes I have made in listing this article, you can be sure that someone will weigh in and tell me so. I don't think anything dramatically awful will happen. Perhaps it will just be closed as unwarranted. Let's see what others have to say. Remember, this article has essentially been on GAN since the spring. There have been two formal GA reviews before yours (by Nikki311 and Jclemens) in which editors have tried to help. Other editors such as Michael Devore, an excellent copy editor, tried. Why has the article not been to peer review? The problem is that the article attempts to present topics in the fields of medicine/psychiatry/psychology but has not received any through reviews by people familiar with the general field. The wikilinks in the article are particularly misleading. I struggled through them, as many of the wikilinked articles are below par, so it is not always clear how reputable the information in them is. The poor state of the wikilinked articles would not be such a problem if their context in Attachment therapy were clear. Some of them are just plain irrelevant to the article context, but give the appearance of legitimacy. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think GAR is a very good choice for this article. GAR isn't a vote, but it isn't like FAR/FARC either. Editors assess the article against the criteria, try within reason to fix problems, but if too much work is needed, then it is better to delist and renominate. Geometry guy 21:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As the editor who encouraged Mattisse to take this article to GAR, if any blame is to be dished out then it should be laid at my door. I think it has serious problems in its present form and ought not to have been listed. Precisely what I thought GAR was designed to deal with. If those problems can indeed be fixed quickly, then so much the better, nothing lost, but I have my doubts that they can. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Morton (SEPTA station)

You or your bot tagged Morton (SEPTA station) extensivley for a lack of inline citiations, sources, etcetera. Do you think I can remove any of them now? ----DanTD (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good job! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism GAR

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/2 - properly this time . -- Avi (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Rocko's Modern Life

Hi! I'm Dylan, GA nominator of the Rocko's Modern Life article. I was getting tired of waiting for comments on it, so I came to you for a GA review (I chose you over everyone else because the only GA reviews that I've seen so far were by you). If it fails the GA review, I have an additional source [6] given to me by WhisperToMe (a primary contributor to the article), and if that's still not enough, I suggest a peer review, to suggest ideas to improve the article to GA, or in time even FA. --Dylan620 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Rocko's Modern Life and it obvious that a lot of hard work has gone into it and there is a lot of very good information. For GA though, you have to consider the Good article criteria very seriously. The references have to be formatted correctly and the writing has to be reasonably good and to flow well. You can't have many short paragraphs. Some sections might have to be beefed up, like the Reception section. Two really models for TV series articles are The Simpsons and Animaniacs. You can see that the writing is tight and flows well. Sometimes peer review is a good place to start before GA review. Are you willing to work on the article to fix up its writing style if I list all the issues in a GA review? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly! My father has showed me some useful info on the creator's website that could not only help improve the show's article, but expand the character articles as well; this info may help Rocko become a GA, and extend multiple other articles in the topic past Stub-class. But in order to really know what to do about the Rocko's Modern Life topic, I may have to start a task force on the subject. However, to do that, I would have to join WP:NICK. This would be the second WikiProject I have joined, by the way, after WP:WPTC. Dylan620 (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw the issue with the pictures in the DVD Collection. I agree; the pictures are unreasonably large. But I'm not sure what I can do; the pictures are probably so big so that the table can fit the episode lists. Is there any way to shrink the table without hurting quality? That would be (possibly) going backwards in this GAN. --Dylan620 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggested on Talk:Rocko's Modern Life/GA1 that you consider reducing the pic size, eg [[:Image:51YSdphdOfL SS500 .jpg|100x100px]], or even [[:Image:51YSdphdOfL SS500 .jpg|50x50px]]. You can control the size of the images and make them what ever size you want. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Fonz

Cheers for the fixes you made on The Father, the Son, and the Holy Fonz - its been a fantastic help. Cheers, :) Qst (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

simpsons episode gan

thanks for the comments - I have left some replies. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look through the article again. I also left a comment. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about GAR etiquette

Hey Mattisse, you seem to be pretty active at GAN so I figured you might be knowledgeable on this. Anyway, an article I have worked on (Gunnerkrigg Court) is up for review and 5 days ago a user put it on hold because there were two {{fact}} tags, saying he would start the review once the tags were cleared up. I fixed those issues on the same day, but the user has not begun a review in the 5 days since then; I've sent him a message asking if there is anything else I should do, but have not gotten a response in several days, even though that user has been actively posting in other areas. I thought about removing the "on hold" marker at GAN so that the article could get back in line to be reviewed, but I'm not sure if that would be rude to the user who originally said he would do a review. Just wondering if you have any thoughts on that matter. Thanks, —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 16:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Answered on Politizer's talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem; thanks for your comments! I've just gone ahead and put the article back in line for GAR; I'm pretty patient, as I know it can take a while for articles to get reviewed and I personally haven't really been pulling my weight (I've only reviewed two other articles) so I'm not in a position to rush anyone else. Best, —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 04:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I left some comments at Talk:Gunnerkrigg Court#On hold regarding the GA review and possible improvements. Thanks! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't mean to bug you, I'm just sending you a message in case you missed my last one. If you've already seen my message and it's still on your to-do list, you can ignore this! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I did not see your first message. Sometimes when I get that "message flash" there is more than one message and I do not realize it. Even to find this message of yours, I had do do a find of "bug you" as I could not find it by just scanning my talk page! I will look at Talk:Gunnerkrigg Court#On hold today. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks so much for all your help and advice cleaning up the article! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I just passed it as GA. Hope any Iso is removed thought. Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I can fix the dates! Should I remove ISO numbers from accessdates as well, or just from the main dates? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove them everywhere. I think the vast majority is against them. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. All the accessdates turned into redlinks...I guess I'll just wait until the people working in the {{cite}} templates change the syntax about that? —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Humm. That's not good. Preferably they should not be linked at all. Perhaps you should change them back until we straighten this out -- there are various talk pages plus the village pump technical that may be able to answer. Too tired not but will look into it tomorrow. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the template documentation, it looks like it will unlink them if I just replace all the accessdate= parameters with accessmonthday= and accessyear= . —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Looks much nicer now. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 05:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System

Hi,

All of the changes you made to Astrophysics Data System were incorrect. The link to Astronomy and Astrophysics [1] is not dead, and the link you changed in the references was from an article in JASIST (correct) to a totally different article in a different journal.

Please change these back.

Best wishes,

Michael Kurtz

Note that I would prefer not to do this myself, as we often point people to the Wikipedia article as an independent view of the ADS, which it would not be if I started writing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkurtz (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I reverted it. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)