User talk:Mattisse

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

If you post on my talk page I will answer it here. Thanks!

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Smile

Viriditas (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Crown comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFK assassination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flickr images

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Cuba

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

Middle of editing

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

Number formatting

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

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

Mangalore

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

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

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

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

Hi Kensplanet,

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

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

DYK: Jones v. United States (1983)

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

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

Zappa FAC failed

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

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

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

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