User talk:Mattisse/Archive 19

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_18) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_20)

Wonder article[edit]

Hi. I see your two new edits on Wonder. It is not immediately clear what your justifications are... 1. Can you explain the bit which you think is OR? It is not self-evident given that the article is made mainly of quotes. 2. You have added a lot cn templates. But just to take the first one, the section surrounded by quotation marks refers to Hobbes "Elements of Law I (Human Nature) IX, paragraph 18". That looks like a very accurate citation to me. (Yes, I put it there. :) ) When citing very old books that are found in many editions it is often most accurate to quote paragraph numbers. One handy thing about that is that all of these old texts are online in various places, and they can be checked quickly if you do not own them. (It would take about as long as posting all those templates.) Thanks for your further explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like OR because there are no references, per the wikipedia policies of verifiability through using reliable sources, generally by citing sources, appropriate reliable, third-party sources, specifically. In the case of an old book, you would take whatever edition you used for the quotation and cite the edition, page number, publisher, etc. When you take several sources, you must make sure that you are not combining them in a way that is yours; in other words, it is important to avoid synthesizing various views into original thoughts. Also, quotes and the material in general must reflect the general body of knowledge on the topic and not give undue weight to one view or another.

One of the references is a link http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/FISWON.html that basically goes to an advertisement for a book. The other one goes to a paper giving one point of view http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/keltner.approaching-awe.pdf, not appropriate as a source for an encyclopedic article with a neutral point of view.

For a topic like wonder (emotion) from a psychological point of view, I probably would start by looking at the research on wonder as an emotion. If you are looking at wonder (emotion) from a philosophical view, then perhaps you would start with the consensus view of wonder in the discipline of philosophy, perhaps the history of the development of the view, etc. (Not being a philosopher, I don't know exactly how to write an article on philosophy, but would look at the article on philosophy to get ideas.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to defend any of the URLs. I am looking at the places where you placed the templates, which are mainly places were it seems to me that a quotations are being made which name their source very precisely. What is wrong with the example I quoted for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it says in the wikipedia policies and guidelines that I referenced above, the point of giving a reference is so the reader can go to that book, that page and see if the reference is correct. Without knowing what edition, what publisher, what page number, the reader cannot do that. However, I mostly was reacting to the article as a whole, so if you want me to remove the tag from the blockquote, I am certainly willing to do so. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest indeed that any template you feel does not need to be there should not be there. I believe that the norm for "classical" works, works that appear in hundreds of editions (though in some cases none might be in print anymore) is to cite in the way mentioned above. Citing right down to paragraph level is of course more accurate than citing down to page number? If any doubt remains then I'd suggest placing a hyperlink to a web edition. It takes a few more seconds that placing a template, but one action improves Wikipedia and the other makes it worse. Concerning the OR concern, can you post something on the talkpage? How can an article made up largely of direct quotes be OR? You must have something specific in mind?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did put a note on the article talk page about my concern regarding WP:SYN. Regards —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! I can't promise to work on this article again quickly, but placing such a note might help get any concerns fixed up. I think it is a short article that will remain short, but it can certainly be tightened up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cquote[edit]

Hey Mattisse, regarding this edit: I wasn't aware that {{cquote}} was deprecated, thanks for fixing this. Just out of curiosity, is there any other template that has any sort of doodads that set it apart from plain <blockquote></blockquote quotes? It doesn't matter for this article (the way you've done it is fine), but sometimes I run into an instance where I'd like to have the quote offset by more just because of how the article looks...maybe {{quotebox}} would do, although that sometimes seems a bit extreme to me. Anyway, just wondering.

Also, I just wanted to say, if you haven't noticed already, I have made several posts lately (in the last 2 or 3 weeks, I guess) mentioning that I disagreed with your !vote and concerns raised at Suntag's RfA (namely, the concerns about Suntag's article nominations at DYK); I hope they didn't come off as offensive. While I don't agree with the concerns you brought up, I wasn't really angry about any of your actions, but just about how things happened in general, and a little bit about the lack of an appropriate response from other DYK people while I was in a period of low activity. Likewise, while I didn't agree with your assessment of the Suanmeitang article, I recognize that you were raising concerns just in order to improve the article for the sake of the encyclopedia and that your concerns were all raised in good faith, so I apologize if at any time during that I got short with anyone (since that was also the same time that I was most upset about what was going on at Suntag's RFA). Anyway, I just wanted to get that all out so hopefully there aren't any hard feelings. I'm still bitter about stuff in general right now and not doing much at DYK, but I assume that, like all things, will pass. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear the air, I haven't noticed your recent posts, and I am used to having negative statements about me, regarding FAC and DYK . Heck, there is an open RFC on me now if you want to contribute a comment, that includes my disruptive behavior at DYK, I think. Anyway, don't worry about it. Actually, if you want, I can withdraw my review before I open the review page. I could just post on your page the notes I have made so far on the article. Would you prefer that? I can remove my name and it would not count as being reviewed at all. (I did not connect your name with any of that when I signed up to review it.)

As far as quotes, {{cquote}} was deprecated in part, I believe because they are too decorative, not encyclopedic. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to withdraw the review, unless you want to. To be honest, I hadn't even noticed you were reviewing it until after I posted that message. Anyway, personally, I wouldn't mind having you as the reviewer because I know you're a lot more thorough than some other reviewers, and I'd rather have the article get scrutinized and improved than just have someone rubber-stamp it through to GA or have someone fail it without looking closely. But it's up to you. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never taken anything you have said personally, nor felt that you meant anything personally. You and I do have fundamental disagreements regarding the things you mentioned. I like and trust you as an admin. Hey, I even voted for you against the wishes of another faction! But maybe it would be better if I did not do the review. I can post some notes on your page. And I would be willing to help you out on the article, copy editing and such. How would that be? And let someone else do the reviewing. I would rather preserve a good relationship with you than risk having any issues over this article. Is that agreeable to you? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine with me, and very reasonable; getting a second opinion on the article is what i really care about, regardless of whether it's in the form of a GA review or just another read-through! But please don't rush yourself to do the review, especially since you have such a big backlog at GAN already; whenever you find time to do it is fine.

You must have me confused with another editor at the moment, though, since I'm not an admin and have never had an RFA...haha. No worries, though. It's been a long day! Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shows how much I pay attention! I will post a few things on your talk page, and then, if you wish, on the article talk page. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chat[edit]

Hi Mattisse. I realise that my link to the chat page I set up wasn't clear. My apologies. I simply wanted to make it a discrete page that wouldn't attract attention. The link is here: User talk:SilkTork/Chat. We can chat about anything you like. Though the main aim is to get at the heart of your frustration and unhappiness. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 09:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memories are made of this[edit]

Quid pro quo list

22:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

[1] Arbcom mems - oh what a (favortism) year!

that meet up video

[2] - the ten-year old

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara/archive1

must be racist - anti-American!

Lockdown (2008)[edit]

How come you marked this good-faith edit as vandalism? All I see is a user fixing a few links which were redirects. That doesn't fall under vandalism whatsoever. I've undone your edit. D.M.N. (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I self-reverted immediately, and got an edit conflict on your page when apologizing. I was too quick on the trigger. Totally unwarranted on my part. (I have edited that article a lot -- thought I saw vandalizm ) I am very sorry. (I see by the history that you reverted first so my self revert did not take.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going on to FAC[edit]

Look, I'm going to nominate Woodes Rogers for FAC. Reason for this is we have the 300th anniversary of the rescue of Selkirk coming up, and I'm hoping to get this main page for that. Time may be too short, but they can't hang me for trying. I'd appreciate it if you'd hang with me through the FAC and keep working on the article. This gives us the time to decide what we are gonna do about Wolters, I've got another ref coming in the mail that is cited in the German Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did pass it as GA and listed it. I will keep working on the article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it might be possible if we can push it to FA to get it on the main page fast. The tercentenary of the rescue of Selkirk is next month. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a good date for the main page. Can it get through FAC that fast? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the 14th, but we'd have to be lucky indeed--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janszoon voyage of 1606[edit]

Thanks very much for constructive criticism.--Grahame (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. You did a great job. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um ...[edit]

Mattisse—I can see how you rub people up the wrong way, and I want your expertise to shine through instead. That was behind my entry at the recent RfC. Calling people sycophants on my talk page isn't a good way of engaging with them. Can you try a different way? Malleus is certainly not what you called him. Tony (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[redact and forget ugly incident]

I'm afraid I've never been good at sycophancy - a quote[edit]

[4],[5] 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Metroid Prime Pinball[edit]

Thanks for passing the article as a good article! If you have time, could you review Outliers (book) for GA, too? I think I've brought it as far as I can without further input from others. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It may take me a day or two. Looks interesting. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you're still interested in video games, Max Payne 2 has been up for nearly a month :) I'm still working on Outliers (book); someone sent me more sources to use to add a Style section, etc. so I will be working on that over the next few days. Gary King (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Will do. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Chak De India[edit]

Hi Matisse, - lol just when I thought I'd take a break :-) - thank you so much, I'll take a look and get back to you shortly. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes that you suggested. Take a look and let me know what else needs to be done. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Give me a few minutes or so. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. Just to let you know, I altered one of my edits and left a note on the talk page. -Classicfilms (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Thanks for tweaking the sentence as it is a bit awkward. The only problem with "The film's influence was noted when..." is that it is in the passive voice - I know that the use of the passive is up for debate in the WP but I try to avoid it when possible. Maybe we need to restructure the paragraph. Any other ideas? -Classicfilms (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I messed it up as I must have been looking at a unrefreshed version. I was going to put back what you suggested on the GA1 page: The suspension of the Indian Hockey Federation in April, 2008 emphasized the film's influence - is that ok? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - refresh is always a pain... sentence is fine... -Classicfilms (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Hmmm. Lines up on my computer - the display probably varies from computer to computer. Thanks so much for the review! -Classicfilms (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might depend on the browser. I use Firefox 3.0.4. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using 3.0.5 - maybe you are right. Also, should I remove the link for the GA review discussion taking it to the article talk page? -Classicfilms (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove link. There is a bot that goes around and puts it in the article history. Unless you know how to put it in the article history yourself. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thanks -Classicfilms (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hill 70[edit]

Thank you for conducting the review. I very much appreciate you doing a bit of copy-editing while reviewing. I have expanded the lead if you would please review and let me know if you are satisfied, that would be greatly appreciated.Labattblueboy (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has passed as a GA. A great job! Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea[edit]

Hi, Mattisse, I'm here to ask a really big favour. I've just issued a "fail" in the GA review of North Sea. The editors have worked really hard, but they don't yet have the skills for such a big topic. I've left some advice at the end of the review. Since I know you're an experienced and helpful GA reviewer, I'd be grateful if you'd have a look and see if there's addtional advice you think would help these editors. --Philcha (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It feels just awful, I known, to fail an article where the editors are motivated and have worked hard. I will take a look and see if there is any more advice to be offered. The topic is big, and also, even though they did not succeed in achieving GA status for the article now, that does not mean they did not learn a great deal from the experience of trying. You offered a great deal of in depth help, and I don't think I could have done as well as you did reviewing the article! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reassurance that I haven't missed anything important or useful. Feel free to call me if I can help you any time. --Philcha (talk) 09:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable person...[edit]

The standard came from England... Foofighter20x (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Drizzt Do'Urden/GA1[edit]

It's ready for you to take a look whenever you have time. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at it right now. I am trying to find the quotebox template, as under MoS:Quotations the decorative quotation marks are deprecated, I think. I like the quote though - good addition. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviews[edit]

Mattisse, I'm pleased to see you weighing in on some FAC reviews again; as several editors indicated on the RfC, your Wiki work is recognized and valued. I hope the New Year will bring positive things for you on Wiki: I welcome a fresh start with the past buried and hope you do, too. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section at ARBCom[edit]

Hi: I think you should move your "Welfare..." section further down on the page. Now it appears under proposals by PMAnderson. It is a mess to navigate around the page, but you can probably make it. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I am trying to figure out how to do that. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it for you, as well as providing some blank templates for other proposals (findings of fact, remedies and enforcement). You'll find it at Proposals by Mattisse at the Workshop page. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I just added another proposal. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VR 04[edit]

I've fixed the problem.--WillC 01:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Looks good. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for passing it. Now TNA's first PPV is a GA. :)--WillC 09:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zarqa River[edit]

I don't understand your citation request. Please see the comment I left on the talk page of the article. NoCal100 (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will look. But the essesnce of it is that you need a reliable source stating that the Zarqa River has been identified as the same one mentioned in the Bible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added such a reliable source to the article, before you tagged it. If there's something wrong with that source, or with what it says, please be explicit about it so I can fix it. NoCal100 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too tired tonight to do more, but as I remember it was a dictionary source, which is fine for pronunciation and such, but not for the veracity of a historical fact. If in doubt we can ask at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Have a look when you get the chance. NoCal100 (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That sounds fine. So I will take care of it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the recent changes I've introduced, to "beef up" the article. NoCal100 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good job. The article passes GA. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NoCal100 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbreakable (film) GA review[edit]

I think I fixed your concerns, but you should check to see if I did it the proper way, or if the article needs more improvement. Thanks for the review. Wildroot (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now GA. Good work. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore[edit]

Because I thought that demonstrating that it had little factual value and was not in English would be enough. Let me know when a new FARC is filed.

Btw, do you realize that "Lightbot" doesn't mean the script? although I have little confidence in it. It means User:Lightbot, a bot whose request for approval is a license to do pretty much anything, by a botmaster who now admits being the infamous Bobblewik (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki); check the block log. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming less clear what is being arbitrated. Is it the behavior of "Lightbot" the editor, or "Lightbot" the bot? Or is it the issue of edit warring between factions? Or is it the issue of autoformatting of dates? Or is it the need to promote links to date pages? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbot is the bot; Lightmouse is the human editor. Both have user accounts (this is standard for bots); the actions of both, and much else, are being arbitrated. The evidence may be the clearest place to start. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the evidence as well as the workshop proposals. That is why I ask. It focus is not clear. I would not be surprised if the Arbcom's decision has little to do with the evidence provided. (I will look through it again). —Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding Drizzt Do'Urden[edit]

At the the article's talk page there's been discussion about trying to bring it up to FA-Class. Since you reviewed if for the GA, I was wondering if you could provide any advice on how it should be improved before a nomination. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to read Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and perhaps look through the current list of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to get an idea of what happens there. I believe I can safely say that is is not an experience everyone finds pleasurable, so you have to be prepared. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal: "Solicit input from the general reader"[edit]

Could I suggest you make your proposal something like this:

"3a) Wikipedia should provide a forum or feedback page for readers who are not editors."

"3b) Wikipedia should solicit wider input than the few editors involved in this arbitration, regarding the issues of date formatting, as well as over- and underlinking, the usefulness of date pages, and the degree overlinking affects general readability of articles."

and place them immediately below "====Solicit input from the general reader====".

Then put "Proposed." after the "::" in "Comment by others:" and move your commentary (which at present is placed as if it were an unnumbered, nine-line proposal) after the word "Proposed".

Also it may be helpful to sign, even though it's in your section (saves scrolling up to find out who made the comment). Hope that helps. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to manage doing what you suggest. I have to admit being somewhat visually challenged in this kind of task and do not understand where I should be putting what. Thanks for the suggestion. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal at Talk:Kingdom of Mysore[edit]

Please respond at Proposal. Thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodes Rogers[edit]

Hey Mattisse, Brianboulton now supports at the FAC, hope you will reassess your provisional support to full support.

Also, have you been keeping an eye on discussions at Talk:Rudolf Wolters? Definitely we have some limitations there but I am hoping that I can glean some info out of the German book I have ordered and hopefully will come early next week. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been keeps an eye on the Rudolf Wolters discussions. The article needs work. What happened to your sleek, sparse style, strictly NPOV of the Albert Speer days? (Some of your "journalist" style - "Wolters was angrily intransigent" - seems to have appeared!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put that in there, that was Fainites. I've been meaning to smooth that out. Before we nominate for FA, I will go through it and assure a consistant style. Wolters' blockquotes speak for him better than anyone else would care to.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let the material (Rudolf Wolters) speak for itself. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rogers passed FA (I've nominated it for TFA because the 300th anniversary of the rescue of Selkirk is on Sunday). Given that we are not yet ready to go on Wolters, I've let the Lane article cut in line and nominated it for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me something that will get me interested in Lane. I would love to be but he doesn't match Speer or Rogers. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about his comment that has been used as a putdown of New Jersey (especially the legislature) for the better part of a century: "Nobody comes back from Trenton knowing anything more than when he went."--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be from New Jersey! How are you going to parley that into a main page date? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno yet, it is early days yet. Getting it through FA is gonna be a challenge because the best ref on Lane is the book of letters, with added bio detail, that his widow published after his death. And yes, I grew up in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Woodes Rogers main page entry something that I should vote on? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent). I can't canvass, you know that. But with the short amount of time I'm giving the community, I'm really hopeful for a few support votes to convince Raul654 it is a good article to run main page and has community support. But do as you see fit. You would lend weight though, since you were the GA reviewer.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Food Taqueria[edit]

What do you mean bout the non free images? Dan56 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria? If you used copyrighted material, it must be "minimal use" and only enough to fulfill the need to illustrate. Using the front and back cover violates the Wikipedia's non-free content criteria policy. Remember, we had this conversation over another one of your articles? This is about Wikipedia avoiding copyright violation law suits. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an artwork section. Are they justified now? Dan56 (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that just adding an "artwork section" does it. Everything in the artwork section is demonstrated by the album cover. You have to give a good reason for violating someone's copyright on a high volume site like Wikipedia. (Also, you have an uncited quote in that para: Kimberley Chun of the San Francisco Bay Guardian wrote "So what is a soul food taquería? Do you get a side of collard greens with your menudo?") —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My faul

I fixed it up good. Dan56 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I hope you do understand why Wikipedia must take this position. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Knight Lane[edit]

Mattisse, if you get a chance, could you look over my latest project, Franklin Knight Lane, Wilson's Interior Secretary who undeservedly only had a stub article, and that I've spent the weekend expanding? Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try but he doesn't sound very interesting. I'm from California and I can't get interested. Maybe you could put something in the lead to entice the reader. Why was the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir controversial? I can guess, but the article does not say. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that clearer. But if the article doesn't grab you, then it's OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to reply until you're sure you meant what you said. Are you seriously saying that there are VPs of the US who are not notable? That's what you just said! I'd rather discuss that here and give you an opportunity to edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wasn't trying to stir up trouble. I just don't think this guy is main page material unless he has a great hook, and I don't see it in the article. But as far as FA is concerned, that is not necessary for an article to be FA so I will not pursue those issues. I certainly do not want to meddle in FA and was being provocative only. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any plans to nominate this for TFA. No need to apologize, I invited you in. There are plenty of FAs that will never be featured front page. All I like to do is keep stamping out FA's, and to see SOME of them front page. I'm not greedy and people would get steamed anyway if I had too many TFA's. It's cool.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. Well, at least I stirred up some publicity for you on FAC. You can respond and expound. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said, it's cool. No problemo. This one may not pass anyway, due to the heavy reliance on the "Letters" book. No one has ever written a bio of him, which is a pity.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Tiger Mountain[edit]

Thanks for all your help! It looks like I need to learn my writing style better since my main problem seems to be copy-editing. Thanks again with the article review!! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Yes, your information is sound. Just the occasional slip up in prose style. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK and the hivemind[edit]

I now understand completely your complaints about DYK. I'm sorry if I was ever curt about it, I tried not to be. Ah well, they have lost yet another valuable contributor in that area in me. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding and for contacting me to let me know. What changed your mind? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Dean (film) GA review[edit]

I addressed you concerns, but to be safe, you should check to see if I did the right thing. Thanks for the review(s). Wildroot (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I think it's ready. Wildroot (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see many of my objections still there, unaddressed, in the article. I will look again tomorrow. (By the way, I like your name!) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I think it's ready. Wildroot (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered on the review page. I still have reservations. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Sugar (album)[edit]

I wanna expand on this article, but i'm not sure if dis a reliable, propa reference to use. MusicianGuide: D'Angelo What do u think?

Dan56 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A really good place to ask about sources is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Usually you get some very good answers quickly (within a few hours or so). I wanted to ask you, have you ever thought about submitting one of your very best articles to WP:FAC? It can be a gruelling process, but you will learn lots about article writing. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Kouandete[edit]

From what I have seen, GA can be the "last step" for an article in which very little information is available; any article can become a GA. I will ask at WT:GAN but if there is concensus in my favor, would you mind unfailing it? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If others think it should pass, then you can nominate it again right away. (There is no time limit, you renominated it immediately, and the fact it failed once does not matter at all.) Then either I or someone else can pass it. It is no stigma in failing once. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Survivor Series (2007)[edit]

Thanks for the review, I believe I have addressed all your comments here.--TRUCO 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D&D GAs[edit]

Since you reviewed Drizzt Do'Urden and Forgotten Realms, would you have any interest in Tomb of Horrors or Dwellers of the Forbidden City? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

repression of the word "terrorist"[edit]

Please see my 2 most recent comments, both of which were ec'd. I'm trying to press the point that WP:V should be the only restriction on its use. Thanks. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already left a note on that editor's page (that removed your remark), and then I left a (snide) post on the WTA page and decided I was getting out of hand and better stop. (I was told that "bad guy" was also a forbidden word, like "terrorist". That means I should shut down and go home.) —Mattisse (Talk) 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I dunno about that discussion. It's all kinda full of power moves, albeit relatively minor ones. It's... hard to see it as being legitimate; it seems a POV pushing exercise ("there are no terrorists"). But whatever. ;/ Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you. I feel like a perfectly good guideline is being ruined by POV editors. And "we" were lectured! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am exercising my right not to care about the individuals or their responses. I can't be arsed about individual editors. But I will continue to follow the debate. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing how a few editors (hopefully it is only a few who think this) can get their way by simply persisting. I'm getting depressed! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) No need to get depressed. No need to spend any time at all—not even a minute—thinking about the individual editors. Doing so is self-defeating; just rolling thoughts around in my mind that make me unhappy is... just a way to make myself unhappy. It accomplishes nothing else. So I don't let myself think those thoughts, simply by mentally labeling/dismissing them as self-defeating. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hard lesson, here. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Hard lessons are almost always the most valuable ones—else everyone on the planet would be height-weight-proportional (I definitely am NOT; am on Day 3 of my latest commitment to jogging), healthy, non-smoking, etc etc. :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kotok[edit]

Mattisse, there's a note for you in the GA review for Alan Kotok. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not familiar with the subject matter of Alan Kotok article, I suspect that you have included mention of the relevant information. The problem is that the material is not rounded out. I have looked for some similar articles so that you could see by example what I mean. The best I could find was the following: Stuart Milner-Barry, Ronald Fedkiw, Otto Julius Zobel. These articles are not quite on the same subject, but they can give you an idea of what a full fledged GA article should look like. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Another note for you there. Thanks. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the note, all I can do is reiterate that I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to be more specific, so go ahead and ask for GAR, if that is what you want, as I am unable help you any more. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Laybourne Smith[edit]

Hi! Thanks again for reviewing the article, and equally thanks for the copyedits. Your suggestions were great, and I think they improved the article a great deal. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You improved the article too. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guess so. :) But I still think the the coolest thing about WP is getting to collaborate on articles, so I really enjoy it when I get to do so - it's much more fun than writing on my own like I normally have to do. And the articles end up much better than anything I could produce. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's a great feeling! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar[edit]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Not only for reviewing and patiently waiting for improvements on Seeing Sounds, but for your hard work in general in WP:GAN. Thank you for the help, hard work and determination; it is deeply appreciated. DiverseMentality 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Speyer[edit]

Thanks for the comments and support for the article. I gather their MO is to wind other users up to the point where they give up. Unfortunately for them, I have dealt with enough Trolls in real life, that their little game doesn't bother me. The problem that this sort of people can cause is that it scares other users from making opposite comments for fear of being attacked themselves.

Regarding the anti-Semitic aspects of the attacks made against him, the literature does seem to link the anti-German and anti-Semitic movements together to the extent that to some they were interchangeable. There appears to be some ambiguity as to his Jewishness. He was indisputably of Jewish decent, but he married in an Anglican church and when he took the oath of office of the Privy Council he initially tried to do it on the the Bible until the priggish clerk, Almeric FitzRoy, forced him to use a Jewish holy book. His children also seem to have married in Christian ceremonies. Therefore, he may have converted at some time, or he might just have been trying to fit in. I originally left out any direct reference to anti-Semitism, but, if I can find some definite examples of it applying to him, I will add something on the subject. --DavidCane (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "being Jewish", I don't think it depends on what Bible a person swears on but on decent, as it is an ethnicity even more than it is a religion. In the U.S., there was a general prejudice toward Jews but I don't think it was overtly a part of any foreign policy and probably would not be mentioned openly or in publications. In fact, it was only after World War II had ended and the treatment of Jews in Germany became general knowledge, that the issue of Jewishness became one of open discussion in the press. I would not be surprised if the situation was similar in the UK; that is, that it was not a topic of open discussion. In WWI, Jews and Germans could well be combined in people's minds, as WWII and concentration camp, etc. had not yet happened. I think you are correct in not making it an issue in your article (unless, of course, you find evidence) because the German connection was a justification for those looking for a reason to treat Speyer as they did. It is remarkable, however, that Speyer was treated so harshly, a person who had contributed so much to the British culture ans was honored for doing so. However, his business success (in some minds connection to Judaism) perhaps increased the degree of harsh punishment to a seemingly harmless man. To me the story in the way you have presented it eloquently speaks for itself. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:World Heavyweight Championship (WWE)/GA1[edit]

Thanks, I addressed your concerns.--TRUCO 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll look. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rootology's RfA[edit]

You voted in an RfA that had already been closed for a few hours. I did revert your edits. — Jake Wartenberg 05:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sector General[edit]

Sorry for being so argumentative! --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It is not clear to me what the heading should be! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Challenges of inter-species medicine"? Or does that soud too much like management speak? --Philcha (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks[edit]

Thank you for the trust you placed in me by supporting my RfA (which passed and, apparently, I am now an admin!). I will do my best to continue to act in a way that is consistent with the policies of wikipedia as well with our common desire to build and perfect this repository of human knowledge; and can only hope that you never feel that your trust was misplaced. Thanks again! --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have a message[edit]

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Hag2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

... and I replied at User talk:Coppertwig#"Coaching" vs controlling. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copy)

Hi Coppertwig. As I said, my objection is to the covertness. To edit the article, or even to offer suggestions, would mean that I would have to watchlist your talk page and those with whom you covertly communicate, and I am unwilling to do that. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page again. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing the talk page game anymore. I have made my point clear multiple times. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current RfC about you[edit]

Hi, Matisse. I've only have dealings with you at GA reviews of articles I've proposed, and I've found you very helpful and reasonable. I find the current RfC about you confusing and depressing, and hope it is closed as soon as possible.

Please do not take offence at the following comments, as they are intended to be helpful. Your tactics in actual and potential conflict situations leave you vulnerable to situations like the RfC. I would not suggest you become a pacifist - that would be hypocritical, as I'm no pacifist myself, in fact if I see what I consider wiki-bullying or disruptive behaviour I want to stop it instantly. Some tactics you may consider useful:

WP:DNFT. Unfortunately a few editors like upsetting people - don't give them the satisfaction they crave.
Stick to the facts about the article - not which editor said what, but what the sources say.
Check whether other editors have simply expressed themselves less carefully than they would in articles. I know I'm often guilty of that, and perhaps I'm lucky that no-one has taken serious offence. See next item ...
If there are ambiguities in either article text or a comment, try to find a way to turn it into a joke. For example Talk:Howard_Staunton/GA1 nearly turned into an edit war (I suspect the reviewer passed the article out of exhaustion), but SyG (an excellent diplomat) created thread Talk:Howard_Staunton/GA1#Summary_of_sources_on_the_personality_of_Staunton which acted as a safety valve, and I started Talk:Howard_Staunton#A_bit_of_fun which also helped defuse the situation. As a result of that, my opponent and I still have very different views of Howard Staunton, but we work together happily and have quite a lot of fun doing so - even on Howard Staunton! What made both of the safety-valves work was that they were not attempts at witticsms but invitations to others to have some fun.
If you suspect someone of POV-pushing, disruption, etc., stick to summarising the sources, including all sides of a debate betwwen sources, for a couple of exchanges. When I do this, I'm not being nice or turning the other cheek - I'm giving possible trouble-makers more opportunities to expose their own mischief.
After all this, if you think it is appropriate to try to stop someone in their tracks:
- Check the facts first.
- Make sure your response is entirely supported by the facts. Give "refs" in the form of e.g. timestamps of posts in the same thread or diffs from elsewhere.
- Be concise. No long emotional rants. My best stopper so far, to someone who accused another editor of being uncivil and having "your head up your arse", was Physician heal thyself. You can even be ostentatiously civil in the manner of a Jane Austen novel, e.g. "How many citations from the last 3 years would it take to convince you that ...?"
- When you do counter-attack, hit hard. I remember an article on negotiating techiques that said experienced negotiators don't attack often, but they when they do, it's swift and fierce. (Did I mention that I'm no pacifist?)
- Check your text for ambiguities and for grammar and spelling, to avoid giving opponents an opportunity to confuse the issue.
- Be concise and avoid emotional rants - yes, I know I'm repeating this. Check your words before you click "Save".
If you think someone is harassing you persistently, assemble the evidence (mainy diffs) offline, not on a WP page that someone may be watching or can trace via your contribs. For each item, add the date and a summary of the main points.
Don't be in a hurry to try out these "combat" techniques - aim for 20 "fun" ways of handling disagreements before you go into combat, and keep the fun:combat ratio at least 20:1. If you know you can kick the crap out of trouble-makers, you may find it less often necessary to do so.

Best wishes, --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your advice. I will read through it carefully and seek to profit from it. I very much appreciate the fact that you took the time of yourself to give to me. Please, please do not let the RFC depress you. It is very one sided and a distorted version of events. Please judge for yourself, based my behavior that you see and not what others say. And I urge you to feel free to let me know if you think I am behaving badly or if you have a suggestion as to how I could have improved the way I handled a situation. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus Heap[edit]

Changed according to your suggestions. Please take a look. Thanks. "Legolas" (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chat[edit]

I will talk with you wherever you wish. I suggest you make no more comments on the RFC. Let that page fade. SilkTork *^YES! 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will let the RFC fade. I see the stupidity of my behavior. Is email ok with you? Or should we have a "really careful" wiki page? Regards, Mattisse

Updating assessments[edit]

Just thought I'd point out that you forget to update the assessment of articles you pass as GA. DiverseMentality 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am operating on only a few cylinders today! I fixed it. Thanks for reminding me. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just today… DiverseMentality 22:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm sorry. It seems to be listed as a good article already. Did you change it for me? It listed listed now. Am I missing something? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice[edit]

I now consider your behaviour to be so intollerable that I have commented here [6]. Giano (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Giano, your input is always welcome and I am honored that you took the time. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no honour. Please just don't interfere with you fatuous comments in my work, and try to follow some of the wise advice your friends are giving you. I'm sure we can co-exist here quite well, it's not as though our orbits are likely to collide - is it? Giano (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I was honored to help improve your article and I thank you for allowing me to do so. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the impression that you were to blame for Che Guevara being defeatured. As far as I remember, the main issues were NPOV and formatting - Coppertwig

chat

SilkTork, perhaps you can be successful at getting Mattisse to realize that, considering the long list of FAs that warrant attention at WP:URFA!!! - Now why would I want to do that!

I will continue my befriending of Mattisse. I have grown to like and respect her and find we have things in common. Before this RFC, and before getting to know her and examine some of the work she has done, I was fairly dismissive of her.

To Bishonen It's a pity that you seem to find it difficult to be even-handed in your criticism, or even recognise the need for it. I see no warning on Giano's page for his personal attack on Mattisse, for instance. Or is it your view that two wrongs make a right?

Giano's ownership of these pages is legendary

(04:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Talk:Valley of Mexico/GA1[edit]

Hi, Mattisse. I'm about to fail Valley of Mexico as GA, since there are plenty of issues that are not individually huge but have not been addressed in the last 2 weeks. However I think a couple of sections are too long and detailed, poorly structured, and less concise than they need to be. I've left some hints on how to rewrite these, and would be grateful if you could add any comments or tips that would help the editors - or present a different point of view, if you think my critique is questionable. The sections that give most difficulty are described at Talk:Valley_of_Mexico/GA1#Overall_impression. --Philcha (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's Law strikes again - Thelmadatter did a lot to deal with one of the issues last night. Maybe he was unavailable until very recently - it's a fairly common consequence of the GA queue's being so long. --Philcha (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar[edit]

Thank you Mattisse for the barn star of peace. I hope that it will act as a symbolic “new beginning” to a more harmonious editing relationship between us. My wish is for us to operate with a clean slate towards one another and to leave the past behind. You have many valuable attributes to offer Wikipedia, and it is my desire for us both to no longer be distracted from our main mission ... which is the production of a great encyclopedic resource. In appreciation, Redthoreau (talk)RT 04:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want that too. I value you because you are honest. Besides, I really do like you! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Bedford HD[edit]

I responded to your GA review. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will take a look. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have some further responses. I have partially addressed your concerns, but I couldn't find anything in policy which would require citing or at least listing a print version of Moby-Dick in addition to the wikisource one. Given that the book was public domain long before the Internet era (making for many print editions, so I don't see the usefulness of a page number citation) and thus many online editions exist, perhaps we should get some opinions on this at one of the relevant policy talk pages. As for the page numbers from the NRHP application, I will be putting them in later. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look later. (I am a little under the weather today.) The reason for the citing of Moby Dick is so the reader can go to that page an verify that indeed that is an exact quote from Moby Dick. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now cited the sections of Moby-Dick to the Plain Label Books edition at Google, which gives it an ISBN and page numbers. So, all your issues have been addressed. (This might still be worth a discussion at WT:CITE, though). Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did the bibliography now. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will take a look shortly. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. A very nice, clearly written article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus Heap GAR now open[edit]

Your continued contribution and advice would be very welcome :) EyeSerene^talk 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anger[edit]

Thank you for the review. And your one complaint is taken care of. :D Woo! I just wrote the article for the most hated album in metal! Burningclean _[speak] 01:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really! The most hated, why? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just metal fan-snob rubbish. They don't like the fact that Metallica progresses and that they don't keep making the same album over and over. Burningclean _[speak] 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jutsu (Naruto) GA review[edit]

Replied to your concerns. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jutsu (Naruto)[edit]

Another difficult one! It looks borderline to me, though the additional information (Creation & concept, Reception etc) is probably enough to push it over the line into article territory. It might, as User:Yobmod suggested on the GAN thread, be worth asking at WT:FL or opening another thread at WT:GAN? EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy[edit]

Would you mind watchlisting The Lucy poems from here on; Ottava, myself an Liz are going to work on it heavily from now, and I cant think of a better guide than you to point us in the right direction, if thats ok. As far as I am concerned the more close and frank the review, the better and more useful. Ceoil (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down[edit]

Mattisse, I have not said a remotely negative word about you in more than 6 months, and have been more than courteous to you despite our turbulent past. I have gone out of my way to twice unilaterally apologize to you (something you still have yet to ever return), extend my hand in friendship to you, and send you encouragement during your difficult recent RfC tribulations. I purposely chose not to be a part of your RfC because I remained optimistic that you would realize that your abrasive actions, only stain the many valuable things you bring to Wikipedia. User:Coppertwig for his/her part has gone even further than I have and continually always deals with you in a respectful manner. Still you insist on casting aspersions against us as some "courteous cabal" who secretly works together in unison to be as friendly to others as we possibly can. You find our commitment (and Copper's advice to me) on civility to be a threat for some reason, and interpret it as a sinister plot to push POV, or prevent you from editing an article -Che Guevara-, that Coppertwig has repeatedly invited you to collaborate with us on. Now out of the blue you begin with a unprovoked attack against myself and Copper 1. I removed this for your own good. Because I believe you are a good person, and I know that you sometimes let your emotions get the best of you (as I also do). Luckily, I have Copper to remind me when I slip up and get frustrated, however you lack such a safety net, and it unfortunately results in you sporadically showing your anger in situations as mentioned in the RfC. I am not sure what I need to say to implore you to not blemish your full Wiki potential with these continued episodes. The last thing I want is to have you as an enemy, or to see you attacked for your behavior ... however you make this commitment to civility very difficult with such actions as your recent decision to turn an article's talk page into a WP:Forum to voice your concerns against me and Copper. I will revert this one more time, in the hopes that you will let it be, and take some time to cool off. You and I both know that the result of this will only be more frustration for both of us, and that it will distract us both from our more meaningful tasks of editing articles. Please, take this message to heart and learn to let things go. You literally just posted that you "can't breathe" because you are so frustrated that Copper and myself (do the basic task) of responding to messages on the talk page of Che Guevara. There is no reason for you to get yourself so worked up about nothing. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, I thank you for your very kind response. I have no problem with you, as you are up front and I understand that you are passionate about the subject matter. What I do not like is the collusion that is not up front. All that I ask, is for the liasions between editors be disclosed and transparent to the editors attempting to edit the article, rather than being covert. I believe a dispassionate glance at the article history tells the story.[7] Do you not wonder why Polaris999 refuses to edit the article that was once so important to Polaris999? I believe that your style is overt, so I do not in any way blame you. Please understand. I am equally passionate but I have no person giving advice as to how to ensure my point of view dominates and to help me implement it. When two collude, then they can defeat honest attempts to communicate by individual editors. I feel that this is what is happening. Again, I do not think that this collusion is your style, other than the fact you delete your talk page and do not archive, so that it is extremely difficult to document this issue. Added to this, is the tendency to whisper which is very annoying to those of us who prefer outright disclosure. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 07:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, to specifically answer some of your concerns. I don't view Copper and my communications as "collusion". If it were so, then all collaboration would be. I also am not sure why you define simple talk page comments to me to be liaisons. I wouldn't classify our current discussion as a "liaison", so why is it so when me and Copper do so. I also am not sure how Copper leaving me a message on my talk page is "covert". If anything Copper has my email (which I publicly disclose) and could easily 'covertly' communicate with me, if that was our intention ... but it is not. In reference to "whispering", I believe that you are misreading Copper's practice of simply placing any critiques/criticisms in small font. It is sort of his/her modus operandi, and not an attempt to hide or conceal anything (as it is still easily readable to all) and not a "code" or something. Lastly, it seems that Copper has reverted my removal of your talk page comments ... thus I am going to politely request that you remove these yourself. I feel that such comments will only "poison the well" and reflect poorly on you, as you are far more reasonable than they appear. Moreover, if they remain then I will have to counter your claims with how I disagree with your assessment (and blaming me for the article losing FA status), and we both know where that will lead and possibly spiral into. So please will you remove those comments yourself? I believe that such an action will go a long way to displaying your commitment to taking some of those RfC comments to heart. There is no reason to feed the unfair stereotypes that you believe you have been painted with. Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, I truly appreciate your message and I feel you good will. As I said before, I like you and can empathize with you. Please do not see me as an enemy. The problem is that we disagree on some issues. But I have little juice left in me to to work on this page. especially as I would have to contend with the two of you. I am so much more interested in what Che actually did versus is "icon" status. So there we differ. But if I had a free hand on the page, I would probably do as you have, and put the information in that I see as relevant. I wish us to be friends and I will not hassle you any more about the Che article. I just wanted to have my last say, in case someone came along who whas really interested in the dynamics of what happend to lower the standards of the page. It is not that important to me anymore. Please understand and be my friend. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Redthoreau that your article talk page comments are not helpful. You've posted numerous comments to Talk:Che Guevara in the last couple of months, almost none of which contribute a single word that could be interpreted as a suggested edit to the article. If you're not going to edit the article or discuss article content on the article talk page, I would prefer that you not edit the article talk page. If you're not going to participate in editing the article, please remember that you've called that your "last say", and stick to that. I think deleting or striking out your comments would be a good idea. (If anyone replies to them, then striking them out would be a better idea than deleting them.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse, I don't agree with your analysis that the pages standards have been lowered, but on that issue we will just have to agree to disagree. However, I would be more than willing to be your friend :o) , and I appreciate your commitment to "not hassle me anymore about the Che article". I believe that such a commitment will be best for both of us in the long run. You add countless things to this wiki project, and I feel that your talents are best used when you are not in confrontation, but rather in adding your wiki knowledge to the hundreds of various articles you like to edit. As for your talk page comments, I will let you decide what to do with those. I don't believe that they help your image, and they aren't exactly a good way to begin a friendship, but if you wish for them to stand as your parting testament, then there isn't much I can do about that. I do understand where you are coming from, and to reiterate will be happy to "be your friend" per your request. Thanks. Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redthoreau, I know you have your view and I accept that. I do value you much more as a friend and would much rather have a relationship of good will toward you than worry about the article. Again, I thank you for your kind words toward me. You have a greater emotional investment in the article than I do, as my interest is purely historical. So I am willing to let go and let you have the article without input from me. I have not been trying to "hassle you" but to object to other procedures and issues instilled by another editor (which I do not consider your fault). I believe that the time for the Che page to be upgraded is not now but will be in the future, as the history of Cuba and Che moves on from its current focus in the article on past cultural phenomena, to incorporate a more recent perspective, as more data will undoubtedly come to light as regimes change and archives are opened and made public (hopefully). I am always willing to try to help you in others ways, if I can, as I do like you very much and understand your emotional commitment, I frequently empathize with the situations you find yourself in, and very much want you as a friend. Again, I thank you so much for your recent input. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse: Re your comment at Talk:Che Guevara#advice: Please stop posting unsupported allegations as you've been asked on your RfC. Here you're making allegations and implications against Redthoreau without evidence:

~~"their mutual Che Guevara POV"~~
~~"you can see how after Redthoreau took over the article lost its FA status".~~
~~"See how the main editor of this page no longer edits it."~~

Although you provide many diffs in your message, none of the diffs are purported by you to support the allegations and implications I mention here: they are purported by you to support other things you're saying (though they do not always even succeed in doing that). I've also replied at Talk:Che Guevara#advice. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)^{(Struck out 12:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC))}[reply]

Coppertwig, surely you must have noticed that Redthoreau has made a very magnanimous peace offer, and that Mattisse has responded in the same tone, has said she will not contribute to Che Guevara or Talk:Che Guevara, and has acknowledged that on such a controversial subject editors are bound to have different interpretations. The last exchange here between Redthoreau and Mattisse was at 14:16, 5 February 2009, and Mattisse's last contribution to Talk:Che Guevara was 19:27, 4 February 2009. Your not very friendly message just above (01:25, 7 February 2009) after peace has broken out might be interpreted as an attempt to stir up trouble. I suggest you leave well alone.

If you strongly disagree with what I have just written, please reply on my Talk page. --Philcha (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thank you for pointing that out. I've struck out my comment. I hope it didn't interfere. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

date wars[edit]

Matisse, your note to Lightmouse, and your support otherwise of the cause, is much appreciated. Lightmouse has been beaten about, bloodied and bruised, for all his skill and hard work. It's manifestly unjust. Tony (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, it is good that you removed yourself from the debate when you did. The whole issue is a mess, and it is not worth your time to argue against a few editors making ad hominem arguments. Nevertheless, your support and input have been very helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words. It is hard to understand what is happening, or that the direction it seems to be going in will solve anything. I do feel for Lightmouse and cannot understand how Lightmouse became a target. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man[edit]

Hey there, thanks for offering to pick up the GA review for Spider-Man. :) I just wanted to point out that there were apparently two prior GA nominations for this article per the talk page, but I haven't found any evidence of a review being done previously. BOZ (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'll look around and see if there is one that is not showing up for some reason. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the GA process changed in the past two years, is all, and that a review back in the day consisted of little more than some talk page comments. For example, this (and this) might be all that exists of review one, and this might be all there is for the second review. PS, I was considering working on some of the recent items mentioned by Emperor on the talk page, but I'll let you do what you're doing first. :) BOZ (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. According to the article history, the article failed GA October 2, 2006 and February 21, 2007, but there is no review there, so maybe those GA nom suggestions refer to that. I do think that the separate "GA review" page used now, which is relatively new, is an improvement and prevents that kind of confusion. Now a new review page opens every time the article is nominated, GA1, GA2 etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100% - the current method is a way better means of focusing everyone's attention, presenting the review, and keeping track of the discussion. BOZ (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) I wasn't sure if this should be "GA3" or, since the other two were very limited reviews, if we should go with "GA1" to make things less confusing. I'll do my best to address your concerns throughout the week. BOZ (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "GA1" was automatically linked, and not something I have control over. The GA number is coded into the nomination link, and for whatever reason the article's past reviews didn't "count". It doesn't matter in any real way whether this is the 1rst or the 10th. There is no penalty for having prior GA's. The only advantage of prior reviews occurs if they contain relevant information pertinent to this review. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and those two certainly didn't contain relevant information unless I was missing something. ;) OK, I'll see what I can do to get this article improved, and see what kind of support I can marshall from other editors as well. Might be very busy this week, but I can at least do some work. BOZ (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles de Gaulle[edit]

Thank you for your posting on my page. I'm not sure what to do. If you look at the CdG article, you'll notice that there has been a lot of work done. I'd like to have the banner about lack of citations removed. Where should I go, do you think? Thanks again. Mikeo1938 (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. It's good to see that the tags have gone. Mikeo1938 (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the "hearing"[edit]

I find it odd to have to pose these questions, here and here. Tony (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it has become farcical. Kafkaesque. Laughable, especially if it is supposed to be serious. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alisia Dragoon/GA1[edit]

Hi Mattisse, thank you for taking up the GA assessment of Alisia Dragoon. I have further queries over your opinion of the images. Please take a look. Again thank you. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on the GA page. (Other than the pix, the article is good.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Septimus Heap GAR[edit]

Thank you for your wonderful inputs on the Septimus Heap article. Really appreciated. "Legolas" (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the George Harrison GA talk[edit]

Mattisse, thank you for your really helpful comments on the George Harrison article. trying to resopond to one of your comments, i found that the "transclusion" from Talk:George_Harrison/GA2 to Talk:George_Harrison seems not to be working right: not all the comments on the /GA2 page are appearing on the main talk page. i have no idea what's causing that or how to fix it, but maybe we could simply keep the discussion on the Talk:George_Harrison page, instead of transcluding it from elsewhere? it gets very confusing if two different pages need to be checked to carry on a current discussion! thanks ... i'll ask Dendodge and Silk Tork to have a look at this too Sssoul (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: sorry, i guess it is transcluding, but there's a delay of some kind. still, wouldn't it be simpler to have the discussion directly on the Talk:George_Harrison page? maybe some of the earlier stuff there could be archived if space considerations are important ... Sssoul (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

purging both pages should fix it, but the lag's definitely getting worse recently (maybe it's related to the 'stick' "You have new messages" banners). If there's an abnormally long job queue, that could account for it. Densock|Dendodge^{in public} 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swede Hanson (wrestler)[edit]

Thank you for reviewing this article. I was pleasantly surprised to see it reviewed this quickly. It actually caught me a little off-guard, as this week is literally the busiest I've ever had at work. If it's okay with you, I'd like to work on your suggestions this weekend. I've been on Wikipedia a little this week as a distraction, but I won't have time to do anything that requires thought until Saturday, so I thought I should let you know that I am not ignoring your review. I have the information you wanted me to add to the article, so I have every intention of doing that as soon as my schedule and mental capacity permits. I hope this is okay. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, take your time. As long as I know someone is working on an article, I am not overly concerned with time limits. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again about the delay. I'll have time in the next couple of days to work on this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Assunpink Creek[edit]

I took care of the issues you listed for the GA Review on the Battle of the Assunpink Creek.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Long Island[edit]

I believe I took care of your concerns for the GA Review on the Battle of Long Island.-Kieran4 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will check. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected what you listed.-Kieran4 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Dr. Octagon GA review help[edit]

Hi Mattisse, sorry to bother you - was wondering if, as an experienced reviewer, you could give me a second opinion on an issue I have with the album article The Return of Dr. Octagon that I'm currently reviewing for GA status. I feel that the split between 'Origins and recording' and 'Music: Production' is a bit arbitrary and doesn't read that well but the editor disagrees. I'm thinking about letting the issue slide but the phrase 'GA should not be FA lite' keeps coming to mind and I'd appreciate your input. Thanks Cavie78 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cavie78. I try to tread lightly in "rewriting" GANs, but in this case I have to agree with you. I looked at the 'Origins and recording' and 'Music: Production' sections, and they do seem to blur into each other, and are not clearly distinguished by content. Much of the 'Music: Production' section seems to relate to pre-production events continuing from the previous section. For example, "As production on the album was underway..." (in the 'Origins and recording') seems to related to 'Music: Production'. In the 'Music: Production' section, there does not seem to be much on the actual production.

Sometimes finding another good article on a similar subject serves to demonstrate what you mean to the editor.

Sometimes asking the editor to put events in chronological order (with time frames, if possible) helps clarify these issues, as the sequence of events has to make sense to the general reader, and mixed chronological order is confusing unless care is taken to clarify.

I have passed a couple recently when I had reservations, letting a issue or two slide, as you are considering. Personally, I think I would not do it again. If I felt the issue was important, and I think confused chronology and section headings is important, then I would fail the article and let the editor take it to GAR or renominate it. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Speyer - Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the comments and support for Edgar Speyer. I think I'll take a breather before I bring the next one out! --DavidCane (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eerie (comics)[edit]

Thank you for reviewing Eerie! I've haven't much to add. There appears to be very little known about the book. Disappointing, I know. I can continue looking but I'm not optimistic about finding more than is all ready contained in the article. Bummer. I've rephrased a bit to bring it up to encyclopedia quality. Waiting to hear! ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It passed as GA because of my appreciation for the information the article does give, a great snapshot of an era that is complete enough in my mind. I'm glad you wrote it and I got to read it! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably don't need suggestions, but...[edit]

I don't know if you liked reviewing Tomb of Horrors (review) but I've got three more just like it. White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. They are all part of a four part series. If you're trying to mix it up, I totally understand, and don't worry about it. I just like your reviews: they're easy on me and really help the articles. Also, it's kind of you're fault. ;-) Your review at Talk:Dwellers of the Forbidden City/GA1, which suggested finding more sources, led me to a lot of what I sourced those three articles with. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider it. I don't consider myself any kind of expert on Dungeons & Dragons. Plus, since you are tending to go on to FAC, I feel like I owe you to do a good, thorough job! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Just so you know, I'm not going anywhere near FAC anytime soon, if I can help it. It's quite painfull, although I learned more in the week of my one FAC than probably anyting else. In general I expect all GA reviews to thorough, though (just speaking in general, not about you), so that part I totally understand. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review. I think I've addressed your comments. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I got it this time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else I can work on with White Plume Mountain? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said the cover art was not really attributed to Jeff Dee? Because if it is, you could credit him, as the Spider-Man article does. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken care of, now. I forgot to mention that on GA1. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So he is not responsible for the cover that is shown in the article? The red one? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seeing the old version of File:S2 White Plume Mountain.jpg? It should be orange. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It is red or orange. File:S2 White Plume Mountain.jpg. Is that the one by Jeff Dee? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. If you look in the file history, you'll see an older cover; I don't know who was the artist for the original beige cover. BOZ (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you don't give him credit in the pix caption like Spider-Man does for its cover art? Looks classy. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just fixed it, although the caption format might need a tweak. I think most of the D&D module infoboxes were missing the caption line, so I just copied it from Ravenloft (module) which is at FAC. BOZ (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I like it. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Léon M'ba[edit]

Hi, Mattisse, I'd like to ask a favour. I've started GA reviewing Léon M'ba and have concerns about the prose. Could you please have a quick look through and let me known discreetly whether you think it qualifies as "reasonably well-written" - don't worry about coverage, sources, neutrality, etc. just the prose. --Philcha (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to ask for a favour in return. I've had a look at Stargate (production team). I assume you've checked the sources. Some things that struck me are:

Overall:
- It strikes me as rather bitty, but I think that's show biz unless / until you are or have been at the very top like e.g. Simon Cowell, Clive Davis or Pete Waterman in production and marketing, or one of the enduring stars among performers. Lesser lights are only as good as the last thing they did.
- The prose is often awkward, sometime unclear, and too verbose in places. Needs a big copyedit.
"Formative years":
Overall the best-written section, but ...
"Notable collaborations":
- "gave American singer-songwriter Lionel Richie his first R&B hit, "I Call It Love", in 10 years" is awkward, I think "gave American singer-songwriter Lionel Richie his first R&B hit in 10 years, "I Call It Love"" would be much clearer.
- I suggest "~~With the team's contributions to music,~~ Stargate emerged as the number-one hot producer ..."
- Who sang "So Sick", "Sexy Love" and "Unfaithful"? Re ""So Sick", this might cast light on a later issue.
- "Knowles" puzzled me until I realised it was the artist generally known as Beyoncé. Should say " Beyoncé".
"Other ventures":
- " will be 50/50 partnership" - " will be a 50/50 partnership".
- Should w-link "Def Jam".
- "Eriksen and Hermansen's connection with Jay-Z began with the release of "So Sick", having met Ty Ty Smith, Def Jam A&R and longtime friend of Jay Z, then CEO of the label" is a horrible sentence:
  - It makes the seqnece of events totally unclear.
  - "Def Jam A&R and longtime friend of Jay Z, then CEO of the label" is telegraphically terse - "Def Jam's A&R manager and a longtime friend of Jay Z, who was then CEO of the label" would be better, but the best phrasing probably depends on how the events are clarified.
- "Eriksen joined Hermansen at EMI Music Publishing as he has signed a global co-publishing deal with the company" ??
- "Prior to the deal, EMI has been involved in the developments of Hermansen for nearly ten years since he signed a deal in 1999" - "Hermansen's projects"?
- "Hermansen and Eriksen will also continue ~~with~~ their joint-venture partnership, Stellar Songs, with EMI"
"Influences and style":
- "Chiefly producing R&B and pop songs, Stargate's genre also includes hip hop" - pointless, ungrammatical (dangling participle) and misuse of "genre". I'd scrap the sentence.
- "~~They're~~Their ~~inclination in~~ enthusiasm for music started ..."
"Critical reception":
- Most of section "Critical reception" is quotes of 4 separate complaints about replicating Irreplaceable, which could be rolled up into 1 sentence.

Bottom line - it's all too obvious that English is not User:Efe's first language (check the hidden boxes at the User page), and I doubt if Efe could ever get the prose right unaided. We may need to raise this kind of issue at WT:GAN - non-native English users want to get artciles promoted (in all senses) on en.WP for obvious reasons, in some ways that helps to counter the much-lamented systemic bias, but their work often needs a total makeover.

Just got your message re Léon M'ba - "yes I agree there are prose issues. I believe this editor's use of automated translations of articles ..." I didn't realise automated translations were so good these days, as my impression is based on Google's often comical efforts. However you confirm my impression that a lot of the prose, not just the quotes, is over-literal translation from the French sources. It has other issues too, e.g. avoids the criticism by a cited English-language WP:RS that M'ba was and Bongo is a puppet of French commercial interests - an impression I'd already formed from reading the article. There may be other WP:RS that present other views. But IMO avoiding the issue completely is both a major gap in coverage and a failure of WP:NPOV. Many thanks for your help!

Stop press: re Léon M'ba, Malleus just sent me "many of us have had similar problems, such as mine with Hubert Maga. Mattisse is quite right, this editor seems to be unable to expand on anything." --Philcha (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! When I cannot "fix" an article, sometimes I tend to think that it is my fault. Great to receive some additional perspective. It's not all "me"! I could not understand why, if there is such a huge discography, Stargate production discography, there was so little to say about their productions. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you said elsewhere, neither of us likes issuing "fail"s, and we both get frustrated when we can't see a reasonable way to put things right. --Philcha (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tinderbox[edit]

I am surprised and disappointed with this review. The article could have/should have/might have been placed "on hold" for improvements to have been made rather than summarily dismissed with "Fail". I have some issues with the reasons for failing the article and I think those could have been addressed with the reviewer in an "on hold" period. I wish I had been "given a chance".

I'm sending the article back to GA with the hope of having a reviewer "work with me" on improving the article rather than summarily dismissing it. If this is something a reviewer cannot do or does not want to do, I think it best that a reviewer remove himself from the article rather than dismissing it "Fail". The reviewer should give the editor an opportunity to improve an article during an "on hold" period before dismising it as "Fail". ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully, I failed the article because it was no where near meeting the criteria for a GA. In my opinion, the amount of work needed is massive. Not only does the article need to be rewritten, but much more research needs to go into it. Please do not resubmit it before you have tried to improve the article yourself. It is not the reviewers job to do this work for you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some people you just can't help :-( Philcha (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting burned out. I am tired of rewriting GA articles for such editors. Some editors are very responsive and it is a pleasure. But looking at an article by that same editor that just passed as GA Ruth Martin (Lassie) and I begin to think that, by and large, the GA effort is pointless. When editors have come to "expect" a massive effort by the reviewer, as I this case, then I will refuse. To fulfill those expectations merely serves to increase the intensity of those demands (they are morphing into entitlements) in future GANs, I think. That is why I failed it. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is asking you to rewrite anything. The article gives the reader the facts - publication history, first English translation (this is an Eng encyclopedia), source, and a bit of background. What more do you want? What do you expect to find by consulting more references? Some huge surprise missed by everyone else? Or is it just more for the sake of more? This is one short story -- not the Bible, the complete Shakespeare, or Homer. As you pointed out in your review I used the best and most current material from a dean of humantiies at Harvard and an Andersen biographer, art correspondent and literary critic for the Financial Times. Why should I drag around looking for less? If you don't want to 'work' on an article by placing it on hold for a few days, (that's the point, or WP wouldn't offer it) then stop reviewing! There are plenty of reviewers out there willing to 'coach' an editor along on improving an article and willing to give an editor a chance before dismissing an article with 'Fail'. If coaching is something you don't want to do then step aside and let someone else do it. As it is you've given the article a negative review which cannot help but influence the next reviewer. Thanks. ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ItsLassieTime, Mattisse is well-known as a helpful reviewer. Re "coaching", I gave you some advice which you rejected - see "some people you just can't help" above.

I suggest ItsLassieTime should look at some articles wehich have passed recently, and see how much or rather how relatively little they needed to be improved in order to pass - compare their contents just before and just after the review. --Philcha (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I noticed in the literature GAs that no one has been required to track world translations of their subject or "world views" on their subject in order to Pass. Matisse expects a world view of this one short story. Fer ... why? It's not required in the GA criteria nor has it been required of other GA literature articles. Virtually everything known and written about this one little short story has been included in the article. Researchers tend to repeat each other on these details so there's no reason to consult fifty authorities on the publication date or the story's souce in order to make the 'reference' section look impressive. I've deleted the images in the article (they posed an issue, dine the article can live without them), I've deleted the quotebox, I've repositioned some material, and have retitled some sections for clarity. Now, what specifically do we need for GA? Please reference the GA criteria for my enlightenment. This is GA not FA. GA does not require us to be exhaustive on a subject and this subject is one little short story -- not the entire Andersen catalog.ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you for this incident. I did not explain myself well. The problem is that any Hans Christen Andersen fairy tale has a universal element, as all fairy tales do. There are common themes that relate to the human unconscious. I am sorry for not being clear. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moons of Haumea[edit]

Thank you for your prompt review and helpful comments on Moons of Haumea. Glad that you liked the revised article! Iridia (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you so much for all your help copyediting Street newspaper! I put it together in such a piecemeal fashion, tacking on bits here and there, that I knew it didn't flow well; I was planning on spending a couple days away from it to clear my mind and then coming back to do one big copyedit, but getting a fresh pair of eyes has also helped a lot.

As for the "hobo" quote... migratory workers, so-called 'hoboes' is the wording from the source, so I restored that...I see why you had some doubts about comparing them, since "migratory workers" and "hoboes" have different connotations now, but back in the 19th century I imagine "migratory workers" didn't mean what it is now. I don't remember offhand if the exact phrase I quoted is from the 2004ish encyclopedia (Heinz) or if it's from the original 19th-century newspaper and quoted/paraphrased there. Anyway, if you still think the comparison is inappropriate, I imagine the easiest thing to do would just be to remove "hoboes" altogether and only quote up to "migratory workers."

Thanks again for the help, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lane redux[edit]

Do you think you could return to the Lane FAC page and at least note that your concerns have been addressed (if in fact they have been)? After three weeks, we have no supports and no opposes, I'm concerned that people may be thinking that I haven't addressed your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Steve Purcell[edit]

Thanks for the review, I've addressed the immediate prose concerns highlighted. As for the other aspects, I agree with what you're saying, but at present there's some source deficits for trying to construct sections on impact/influence and the like - he's just not that high-profile. I'll see what I can do regarding getting some creative personality aspects into the prose, but I'll need to pursue some print sources for that, I've not come across solid online sources for that. I'm presuming that you're raising these particular bits as recommendation for future work towards FA; I won't be able to address those sorts of concerns within the usual GAN time period (it usually takes me a few weeks to dig up print sources, if they are available, whilst juggling uni work) and you already say that the article passes WP:WIAGA and in the second section are making reference to WP:WIAFA instead. I hope I'm not interpreting this wrong, as I said I don't think I can address those sorts of issues with a GAN time period. -- Sabre (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that I did indicate the article meets GA criteria, but as I was writing the review I began to realize that it did not. It neglects a major aspect of the subject in the article, i.e. description of his work and its impact. I believe that goes to comprehensiveness. It neglects a major aspect of the topic while going into detail on job changes/career moves. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you perhaps point to an example in another article of what you are after as far as a description of the work goes? Right now, its rather unclear what exactly you want, an example in another article (preferably one who is small-time like this guy). If I have a clear idea of what I'm after, I may be able to satisfy that. As far an influence/impact section goes, an article shouldn't have to have sections for entities which cannot be sourced in accordance with WP:V – verifiability, not truth. I've not found any sources that would allow an influence/impact section to be created; not all people in a creative profession have a significiant impact that has been analysed by others. An article can only be as comprehensive as sources allow, one shouldn't hold them to rigid criteria. The closest thing I've got to reception info is over at Sam & Max#Cultural impact and reception, but that's not analysis of Purcell's impact. However, another example would be helpful to demonstrate what you are after (again, small-time person please). -- Sabre (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Looking through the GA on "Writers, publishers and critics", examples that might be applicable (to give you ideas) are Jack Coggins, Steven Moffat, Terry Pratchett. Also, Louis Laybourne Smith who is an architect; the initial submission of the article on him to GA had almost nothing in it about his work. I realize that some of these artists are older and more established than Steve Purcell. Nevertheless, Steve Purcell is notable because of his creative work, is he not? The material from Sam & Max#Cultural impact and reception is indeed quite interesting and does convey the content of the work. But the reader should not have to read that article to know what Purcell's work is about when reading his biography. Knowing the content of his work would have the effect of adding his personality to his biography.

Also, I removed this from my initial review, but the lack of an explanation for this statement still bothers me so I will add it back:

However, LucasArts abruptly canceled the project in March 2004; Purcell described himself as "frustrated and disappointed" at the decision, unable to understand why development, which had been proceeding smoothly, had been halted.

—Mattisse (Talk) 14:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite see how to integrate such information into the structure. Most of those people are too structured in what they work with, Purcell's everywhere at once. A split-off section dedicated to Sam & Max would be over-the-top, but I can't see a decent place to insert such information into article. Where abouts would you suggest? As you may have guessed, I'm not experienced with writing biography articles, this just isn't coming together in my mind to allow me to write. I also can't see what's to explain about the statement. Purcell worked on the fringes of the project, LucasArts abruptly cancelled it for what seemed to the media as petty reasons, Purcell said he was frustrated and disappointed at the cancellation. Seems reasonable to me. -- Sabre (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I have a rough idea of how to proceed, but there's no way I'd be able to do it effectively during the time of a GAN. I'd recommend failing the GA for the moment; I'll make the alterations and resubmit it to GAN when they're done. -- Sabre (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology in Germany[edit]

Hi Mattisse, I've started reviewing the edits by Voxpopulis (talk · contribs) and am posting results on the talk page. So far I am not yet clear as to whether what we have here is a good-faith content dispute or a conscious effort of disruption; the fact that this user name was registered only today, even though the user shows clear familiarity with WP, makes the former less probable somehow. But I will continue to look if there is anything of substance. Jayen 466 19:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are two admins watchlisting the page. If you edit civilly, with talk page justifications for your edits, assuming good faith until evidence is clear otherwise, you should be able to resume editing. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Dear Mattisse, thank you for this but no apology was necessary. I am most contrite that I didn't see the vandal edit before mine that you were aiming at. For such a subject I really should have looked ! Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Track[edit]

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purcell[edit]

As a subject Purcell is notable but not very interesting: despite the Fish Detectives, his career is based entirely on Sam and Max, right back to his childhood; there seem to have been no early struggles, everything just fell into place for him; his private life has been so quiet that the major event was "adopting" the Sam & Max idea from his brother. A "Critical Appraisal" section would be difficult for the same reason - with most artists the articles on works have fairly detailed critical appraisals and the articles on the artist is an overview of these, but with Purcell it's all Sam and Max. However I'd want to to see a "Critical Appraisal" section, even if it's a rehash of the one in Sam and Max. These things happen - I've just done the phylogeny section of [Ctenophore]] and half of it is is a copy of the phylogeny section of Cnidaria, because the issues are the same. Count your blessings - at least it's not an article about a US highway :-) Philcha (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (There is on "biography" on the current GAN list that barely mentions its subject.) —Mattisse (Talk) 23:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate[edit]

Hi Mattisse, how are you. I have left comments on the review page. I am just curious about this line: "Sorry, I accidently reviewed this article!". --Efe (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Efe, my comment does look a little strange. I reviewed the article for GA, thinking that I had already signed up to do it. Only when I went back to place it on hold did I see another editor's name there. Since I had already opened the review page, I thought I needed to offer an explanation! The other editor said that I should just continue with the review. Hope all that is OK with you. (It was inadvertent; I have never done that before.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I did not notice there was another editor interested in reviewing it. Its fine with me. --Efe (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still have to add more on the article, perhaps you could re-review it for me to know what's lacking. And by the way, I have left comments on the review page. Thanks Mattisse. --Efe (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it later today, as I don't have time now. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mattisse. Thanks for passing the article to GA. That was such a nice and challenging review. --Efe (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. You worked hard and accepted criticism with good will. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man Redux[edit]

Hey there,

I'm going to do what I can for this one. I probably don't have the skill to get it to a GA by myself, so I was kind of hoping for helpers who don't seem to be showing up. :) But I will do the best I can.

What can I do for the footnotes? I don't quite understand the formatting style used by the article's previous contributors (who did at least 98% of the work before I got there), but it does remind me somewhat of the footnote formatting I've seen on the main Dungeons & Dragons article. BOZ (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions? I'm not quite sure what to do. BOZ (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as I do not know what to think of the footnotes either. I guess, if you are really interested, the books under references look good. I added one of them from the footnotes, as it was not listed. I almost feel like acquiring a few, as the whole subject is very interesting. Who ever wrote the article must have known quite a bit of detail. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tenebrae seems to have done more work on it than anyone else, but he's been missing for a few weeks. I'll do what little things I can for the article here and there, and if it doesn't work out this time I'll talk to him when he comes back and we can make it really solid before renominating! BOZ (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, keep posting questions and comments on the review page as you think of them, and I'll deal with them as best I can; if the nom is not successful this time, at least we'll have a very good idea what needs to be improved to move it on. BOZ (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, for all your help, advice, and most of all patience. :) BOZ (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA status[edit]

Why are nominators singled out for GA praise, while others who have contributed and done hard research, for many months to get the article up to standard, don't even get a mention? HelenWatt (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason, other than that editor addressed the reviewer's concerns. They are not really singled out for praise; it is the article that achieves the GA status, not the nominator. And specific GA praise means little, except perhaps to the nominator. It has no lasting effect. Are you concerned about a particular article? (If you were responsible for a specific article reaching GA status, you can claim the honor as much as anyone else.) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on some User pages, editors claiming GA awarded nominations. I consider wikipedia a collaborative project and that to me is a slap in the face to other editors who contribute and a form of article "ownership". It discourages new editors from contributing to existing articles. That's all. HelenWatt (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people are people. If you feel you contributed substantially to an article, you can list it also. The truth will out (to some degree) with the contributors tool. Fill in the article name: [8] —Mattisse (Talk) 01:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful tool but it doesn't show the real story. Lots of editors do quality edits where they take the time to check spelling, check links, grammar etc before pressing the "Save page" button. Editors sometimes save a page without marking it as minor. The tool only shows all recorded edits. I guess it's harder to quantify a quality edit. HelenWatt (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. If you feel you deserve credit, then do not fear taking it. It is up to you and what you feel you did. Do not hold back from taking credit if you feel credit is due. As you can see. others do not. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited comment here—I agree with your concerns, HelenWatt, but at the same time, GA awards (if they're really awards) aren't a zero sum...10 people can claim GA on the same article, if they all helped a lot with writing it; if I worked with you on writing an article then I wouldn't mind if you put a GA doodad for it on your userpage (even if I did 75% of the work on it and you did 25%...you still would have made a valuable contribution). I guess it would be a problem if someone was trying to go around saying "hey don't take credit for my GA," but I don't know if anyone has ever been that ridiculous. But anyway, you're right about the spirit of the whole thing: we should be improving articles for its own sake, not for awards or baubles to put on our user pages. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point HelenWatt, and I have in the past taken editors to task for claiming credit for articles they were at best only marginally responsible for. But at the end of the day it's your decision as to whether or not you think that you contributed significantly to the article, whatever "significantly" means to you. For me it means contributing content, so no matter how much time or effort I might spend on copyediting or reviewing, for instance, I would never claim to have been a contributor to the article, and so would not expect any credit for it. We each have to decide for ourselves what we believe to be fair. What is certainly unfair though is that reviewers get no credit for anything, just stick when it all goes tits up. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The difference is perhaps between "I wrote", and "I significantly contributed to"? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

This editor's opinion is not welcome on my talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to G-guy[edit]

It is best that I not comment on your talkpage anymore, as I dislike being hounded by other editors, so I will post this here and leave a talkback template for you.

I thank you for your wonderful help and support. I have completed something like 140 GAs in the past few months and have loved doing it. However, it probably is best for me not rely on you for further help, as your repeated lectures to me on NPOV suggest that you have little faith that I know the basics. If you have a specific problem with an edit of mine that you feel is POV, then feel free to point it out to me. Otherwise, thank you again for your help but it is best I move on. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I have great confidence that you know the basics and you have been making exceptionally good contributions to GA. I don't know what a POV edit is (most edits represent some point of view, but that is fine), but I can't imagine you pushing a point of view, because it is so obvious that you value the encyclopedia so much, as I do. I am something of an enthusiast (a.k.a. obsessed :) by WP:NPOV and rather sensitive to it: I was and am speaking about noticing (perhaps accidental) bias in an article. If I tend to lecture, that's the reason, not a lack of faith. Or to put it more light-heartedly: "nobody understands WP:NPOV like I do" :)

Anyway, I have no problem with you moving on and wish you all the best. Geometry guy 20:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best also. But I hope you do not feel the need to take over the Scientology article. It seems that you are not disinterested and I am worried about your POV. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add comments to the talk page only, to inform the content dispute, without prejudice to your review. I am disinterested in Scientology, but that is irrelevant. You might reflect that your worries about my point of view could be taken by me as criticism of my understanding of the basics. However, I do not take it that way, and continue not to worry. This is my leisure time. I don't come here to worry. Geometry guy 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do not perceive you as disinterested. That was apparent to me on your talk page. However, of course you can interfere as you like. I am sorry to see it happen as the editors were dealing with it well, in my opinion. But, of course, you are free to have your own POV. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your usage of "POV": would it label "interfere" in your own comment as POV? Geometry guy 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what you mean. My own point of view is that "taking over" an article while reviewing it is unethical. Your comments on your talk page indicated a very definite point of view on your part regarding the subject. You may think it is neutral, but I do not. I do not think it is right for you to interject it in a GAN article because you think it is correct. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It isn't your job as reviewer to "take over". NPOV is a GA criterion and it is up to you, as reviewer, to interpret it.

My opinion on talk pages only carries weight per strength of argument. The relevant policy on talk pages is WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:NPOV. My interpretation of anything anywhere is subject to consensus. I have zero desire to impose my viewpoint on any article. I simply hope to raise neutrality issues to inform discussion. If my arguments are crap, then dismiss them. If they suggest improvements, then follow them. If you feel I have failed in some way to contribute towards improving the encyclopedia, then advise me or chastise me. Geometry guy 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn. You have taken over. I do not want to deal with your POV. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applying Wikipedia initials for articles to editors is unhelpful. Can you explain what is "my POV" in a way which helps me understand why it makes you so unhappy? If not, simply: sorry. Geometry guy 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have a point of view. You expressed it on your page. It is not neutral, although you seem to think it is, and therefore you have carte blanche to interfere. Since you have greater power, and you wish to conduct the GAN in a way that I do not like, that is antithetical to my way of doing things, then I have no choice. I resent it but there is nothing I can do except refuse to associate myself with it. It is very unfortunate but then, GAN has become an unpleasant experience between you and Malleus, so it belongs to you guys. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*:Please do not discuss me on this talk page Mattisse, as you have made it perfectly clear above that I am not permitted to respond to your bad faith accusations. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Edit summary[edit]

I am very sorry that you have ignored my advice that matters between editors should be discussed on user talk, not article talk. In that respect, this edit summary is particularly unfortunate. It neither contributes to improving the article, nor summarizes the comment you made. The suggestion that I could take over the content in a contentious article such as this is ludicrous, and you open yourself to ridicule by suggesting it. I repeat, I am not an GAN reviewer for this article. I have no special status. I am an editor like any other. When I comment on an NPOV issue, either on my talk page or on an article talk page, it is not a dictat from any sort of authority. All contributions to Wikipedia are judged on their merits. Yours too. Geometry guy 01:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your second reply was much better, however. Thank you for that. Geometry guy 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Super Mario Bros. 3[edit]

No, not at all. I said before that your edits are always welcome and I still mean that. Only one or two sentences had started to deviate from the original meaning; mainly because I didn't have the time to properly discuss them on the talk page like on Marble Madness. The primary reason is that I don't have the time to oversee a FAC right now.

The secondary reason is that I think I just don't have the writing chops to cut it at FAC anymore. I've been trying to read up on how to write more "brilliant prose", but applying most of the concepts to prose outside the examples is beyond me. I have a long list of classic games I'd like to work on, and sending them to FAC to get them perfect would eat up a lot of time. I sure I could get more done by only focusing on getting them to GA; less stress and more quality articles on video game history. Plus I sure some editors there are tired of seeing video game articles. Poorly written video game articles have been the cause of more than one snide discussion there, and I'd rather not deal with it.

So anyway, don't go beating yourself up over the SMB3 FAC. It wasn't the proper time to nominate it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Short and to the point[edit]

After 10 badly (mis)spelt edits by VoxPopulis the article on Scientology in Germany now manages to mention "the Unification Church, ISKCON, Children of God, and the Divine Light Mission", as well as "the Waco Siege in 1993, Order of the Solar Temple associated murders and suicides in Canada and Switzerland in 1994, and the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo incidents in Japan." Is that what you meant by "short and to the point"? :-)) Jayen 466 01:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to think of solutions. What is that book he is using as a reference? Seiwert, H. (2004), p. 86? I could post on his talk page, asking him to discuss on the talk page first. Then I could use a few edits to remove his material, and if he reverts, document his editing as disruptive on the talk page, especially if he is not discussing his edits on the talk page first. User:Moni3 is the admin that put a note on his page before. She might be willing to help again, especially if we do everything right, using the talk page, etc. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look. Vp has also asked Gg to weigh in. The source is here. It is a chapter discussing the German Parliamentary Enquête Commission on "so-called sects and psychogroups", which took place in the 1990s. Its purpose was to address popular concerns about new religious movements. Generally speaking, what has been inserted is from a useful book and a reputable scholar, it's just a bit off-topic and WP:COATRACKY the way it's been used. Jayen 466 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think he needs to show a point why those specific cults are being mentioned. Otherwise, it is just inflammatory. The articles they link to are poor, and for that reason I would not link to them in an article. Otherwise, lets just keep a watch on what he puts in. He must justify everything. (He has at least become more careful.) —Mattisse (Talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Warning[edit]

Can you tell me what you find objectionable here and also tell me why Jayen466 has not received warnings for these edits. If you have specific issues with my recent edits elaborate on the talk page. If you continue display editor bias I will have to raise this as a possible case of admin abuse. Thanks. Voxpopulis (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and it's not WP:GF of you to discuss me the way you have with another editor. Voxpopulis (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine if I am referring to your behavior. I am not trying to read your mind. I am saying that you need to show such and such material. That is discussing your behavior. I am saying that such material without context is inflammatory in the article. That is called discussing the material and its context. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your other question, Jayen466 has discussed everything at length. Unfortunately User:Geometry guy reverted much of the discussion on the article talk page. However, if you look in the article history you will see that much discussion took place. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to any information I have reverted and I will restore it. Geometry guy 09:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Then I could use a few edits to remove his material, and if he reverts, document his editing as disruptive on the talk page"
"Otherwise, lets just keep a watch on what he puts in. He must justify everything. (He has at least become more careful."
"If I were you, I would save a copy, in case the article temporarily goes to hell."
"so far the article seems ok and his additions are not fatal"
"I have out waited editors and restored an article at a later date"

These are irresponsible remarks to make about an editor who has not made any disruptive edits to the article. Please try and observe WP:GF thanks. Voxpopulis (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are comments directed at your behavior, my behavior, Jayen466's behavior. Not at personalities, personal qualities etc. Everyone must justify everything. It is a compliment that you have become more careful in your behavior. I have said nothing about you personally. But at least now your behavior does not merit more warnings. That is good. It is also good that you are using the talk page and communicating, albeit somewhat agressively, but nonetheless communicating with me. Maybe we will be able to work with each other. I see that your additions were responsible. I feel that you are doing well. It would be good if we each could become more pleasant in our communications with each other. I wish that would happen and apologize for anything I said to which you took offense. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

apology accepted, and no offense was taken, just please do not assume my intention is to disrupt or that I have some kind of "anti-cult" agenda, I simply do not believe it is wise - and it is potentially misleading - to present controversial subject matter without sufficient context. Voxpopulis (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and please do not assume anything on my part, as I had my own problems with the GAN people that only happened to involve that article, but were not caused by any views I have of the article content, other than as it pertained to GA status. I have withdrawn from GA reviewing and do not wish to be involved, other than to do the right thing. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Sex victim advocacy[edit]

Category:Sex victim advocacy, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of the rules[edit]

You have often commented on the user-friendliness of Did You Know rules. So I'm announcing my Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposed rewrite of the rules, and in particular, please notice the instruction creep section. Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for all your copyediting at Street newspaper. I'm beginning to get quite amazed at how good a writer I am in real life and how bad a writer I am on Wikipedia...I guess it has something to do with all the moving stuff around and putting things together so incrementally, losing track of the bigger picture. Oh, well... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just has to do with "new eyes". When you are familiar with the material, it is hard to be objective! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neurolinguistics[edit]

Regarding your question in this edit summary: yes, that definition is correct, although it might not be worded clearly—it is about brain structure, but specifically about the brain structure/function that controls language. The wording "comprehension, use, and knowledge of language" is what the reviewer suggested for what I had before, the more buzzword-y "comprehension, production, and abstract knowledge of language" (these are all widely used terms in the field...in neurolinguistics and psycholinguistics, comprehension and production refer to the computations by which people encode messages into language or, vice versa, decode langauge into an intended message; abstract knowledge refers to the representations of words, phonemes, grammar, etc. in the brain; and acquisition refers to changes the brain undergoes to acquire language). Maybe having "study of the neural mechanisms that control..." before that bit isn't quite enough to clarify that it's the study of how the brain handles these things, rather than just the study of comprehension/use/knowledge/acquisition in general. Is that the impression you had? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)::[reply]

To me "comprehension, use, and knowledge" doesn't quite make sense. "Comprehension" of language, I understand. By "use" of language, you could mean the understanding and use of grammar or structure of language, or you could mean the mechanics of actually speaking. "Knowledge", I don't know what that adds. What do you mean specifically by "knowledge" of language? Looking up "Neurolinguistics" on Google returns very broad definitions. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Use" refers to production (speech, writing, etc.); I could restore that, since it's a more specific term, if it's not too confusing to lay readers. Same thing about knowledge; I think "abstract knowledge" or maybe "abstract representation" is a more specific term (although, of course, maybe it only makes sense to me because I hear it all the time)...I guess "abstract representation" is a pretty big phrase and might scare away readers, but personally I don't think "abstract knowledge" is any more difficult to read than "knowledge," and probably is a little bit more helpful. But yeah, by "abstract knowledge of language," it's referring to what things in the brain actually constitute "what you know when you know a language"...the most well-known example of this question is Chomsky's Universal Grammar hypothesis, which says that all languages are a result of setting a bunch of on/off switches on a "universal grammar" that is hard-wired in the human brain (as opposed to being learned through experience). That's a bit of an extreme example of "abstract knowledge of language," but that's basically the sort of thing "abstract knowledge" is concerned with—trying to get at what things in your brain are being manipulated when you learn or use language.

As for Google, I have long since given up on trying to look up anything on neurolinguistics there, since almost all the results it turns up are spammy pages about the pseudoscience neuro-linguistic programming (another depressing thing is that that article gets more page views daily than neurolinguistics does). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found Google to return some good stuff including a good journal and a basic text right off the bat: http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=Neurolinguistics&btnG=Google+Search&aq=-1&oq=

I think the more specific terms you suggest are better. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]