User talk:Mattisse

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Voorts	95	3	4	97	Open	21:06, 8 November 2024	5 days	no	report

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 18 19

• Quid pro quo list

Banners

You left three banners on beyond the shadow of a doubt. Would you be willing to explain them on the articles talk page, especially the third? Thanks, Piratejosh85 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

(copied from Talk:Beyond the shadow of a doubt)

As far as I know, this is not a legal term in any jurisdiction of which I am aware. The article give no reliable sources. It mentions that it was used in a newspaper 200 years ago, although it does not say in what context. It also mentions that it was used in an opera and a poem. None of these qualify as supporting this term as a legal term. The article is totally unreferenced.

The article misleadingly states: "The term is often, though mistakenly, used interchangeably with beyond a reasonable doubt." This is not true in the UK or the US.

Furthermore, there is no definition in the article of what Beyond the shadow of a doubt means.

Wording such as "many feel" are considered weasel words by wikipedia.

Considering the article is unreferenced and asserts information that is untrue, using weasel wording, it may be original research. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll try to improve with your suggestions in mind Piratejosh85 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Memories are made of this

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

• [3] from Wehwalt

Seth Sabal Photographer

Hello, Can you please tell me how to have my deleted page restored? I wrote an article yesterday about a photographer named Seth Sabal. I followed all the rules and established "notablity", sourced all my references and it was deleted. I think this might be a bias delete, based on old posts. I dont even know how about having this fixed, I think it should be included. I noticed all the nice articles that you have written, and would love you help.

Now the editors are insinuating some things about my grammer, and I feel so angry. This is supposed to be a great resource for students like myself, Its even our class assignement to make a Wiki article. I am flabbergasted that it been so difficult with all the correct reference links and obvious notability. PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me.

User:Wehwalt just undeleted this as I was trying to restore it. Karanacs (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did because it looks like there was a conflict between two admins, one of whom declined a speedy and one of whom granted it (three minutes apart, so I doubt it was wheel warring). I'm leaving them to figure it out themselves. Photoblogger already was in touch with one of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you will have to address it through User:Hoary's talk page. Apparently Hoary did save the article in a sandbox, where it can be improved and perhaps resubmitted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked for good references on this photographer and cannot find any. I am concluding that the page will not be undeleted as the subject is not notable. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

HI Matisse, I went ahead and did my research like you suggested, I found and linked Vogue contributions of the photographer Seth Sabal. :) I knew that I would find it. I also found him in the list of Model.com as one of the top photographers for fashion in the world, with a Vogue Brazil link. I really apprciate all your help, and now I want to know how I would go about undeleting this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox

Thank you, Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(posted on user's talk page)

User:PhotobloggerNYT/Sandbox is redirected to Wikipedia:Transwiki log so I can't find your article. Anyway, you can appeal to Wikipedia:Deletion review where you can appeal to have the article undeleted. You have to follow the directions there, which are rather hard to understand.

Do you know who deleted your article? What admin did? I think maybe it was User talk:Wehwalt. You should contact him first.

Or you could go to the Wikipedia:Help desk and ask for help. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in my sandbox, now that I have rewritten it, how to I go about submitting it again? Also, would you kindly take a look at it and see if you like it? Thank you!! SarahPhotobloggerNYT (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, it I had undeleted it to look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't understand what is going on. If the article can be referenced, will it be allowed out of the sandbox? What's the deal? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, it's been deleted three times, once recently not counting the undelete/redelete. I'd really have to research who was involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:PhotobloggerNYT, the article in your sandbox does not have reliable sources, which every article must have, especially one where there is no evidence this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Sorry! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, it is not a notable subject; it has no reliable sources. None. So I don't think you should spend time worrying about it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you consider "reliable" sources? I am at a loss, I thought linking the Vogue and Surface would be enough. Please elaborate. Thank you.PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PhotobloggerNYT, go to this page and read it: Wikipedia:Reliable sources I will try to find a sample article so you can see. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link, Mattisse.

PhotobloggerNYT, can we move this general discussion about your article and sources to your talk page, intead of having it on 3 users' talk pages? Unfortunately, Mattisse is correct about your sources, they are not reliable sources. Most of the sources you linked to are blogs, and anyone can say anything on a blog. If he's been in Brazilian, Italian, and Spanish Vogue they will have small articles about him that give his bio and credentials. This are considered reliable sources. But, please do start by reading the link that Mattisse gave, and I will copy this post to your talk page to discuss there. --KP Botany (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your response to my comment. I do hope things work out for you. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate the fact that you actually read through all those diff with the care and rationality to point out some discrepencies. Perhaps, if it is ok with you, I will check with you the next time a problem seems to be emerging. Thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Vincent Ogé

I note the merger tag you placed on the above article almost a year ago. I've completed the merge and expanded the article. He seems like quite an important subject, and I think there is more to be done. Thanks for placing the tag. Someone gets around to it eventually! Ohconfucius (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful. Haiti is badly neglected and I am so glad you got that article up to snuff. There were many people important to the history of Haiti that have no articles or just tiny stubs. And Haiti has a fascinating, complex history that we should all know. Congratulations! Perhaps you will have inspired me to get to work on some Haiti articles. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's start over

I think we kind of got off on the wrong foot at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes. I appreciate the work you did on Sano, but I hope you understand that you weren't alone. Tintor2 and I also did the best we could've before having that copy-edit request made. Well, that's about it. Now Trunks (Dragon Ball) is another page I have my eyes on, though there isn't much I can do there. Do you think you'll have time to fix up that one too? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be wonderful to start over with you. I do not hold anything against you. My problem was that the minor incident between us, for which I hold nothing against you, was used in and RFC against me Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3 as one of many incidents totally blown out of proportion to show how horrible I am. Thanks so much for the note to me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Guess now that that's over with, I'd like to know if you can perform a major copy-edit on Trunks' article. It would really make a difference. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC comments

Mattisse, please understand that the RfC was not meant to show that you are "horrible" (I personally would consign murders/rapists to the "horrible" category and few others); it was merely meant to illustrate that some of your comments and/or actions might have been inappropriate. It should not, and indeed cannot, be taken as a reflection on your character or you as a person, since I would suspect very few Wikipedians know you personally. We're only qualified to discuss the impact your actions have had on us. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, if the RFC were not meant to show that I am a horrible person, then the diffs would not have started 20 days after my first edit in May 2006, would not have included the sock puppet allegations which User:Salix alba and others said two years ago that the sock puppet issue should not be used as an albatross around my neck, would not have included very minor issues that had nothing to do with FAC, or anyone involved with FAC, would not have included allegations of me stirring up trouble at GAN/GAR when that only happened when SandyGeorgia entered into a situation to defend someone after I was already involved, would not have included allegations about Che Guevara article which the major neutral editor there User:Coppertwig denied, would not have included misleading and incorrect information like the link about ALL CAPS in article inline notes which some editors liked (eg Casliber, as I recall) and other did not, etc, etc. If the RFC had meant to be helpful, it would have included relevant and recent diffs specifically pointing to the problems. As it was, I could not even make my way through all those diffs, only getting through about half before realizing the tenor was petty and unconstructive. I do not blame you or most others who participate. Almost everyone gave me praise as well as pointing out faults. Except on editor. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is, unfortunately, recommended that all RfCs include a link to any previous RfCs that involved the same editor. The inclusion of those links is standard practice, and not something meant to specifically draw attention to those incidents or to make you feel as if you were being hounded for mistakes/disputes far in the past. Their inclusion is also not meant to imply that fault was found with the editor named. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) Yes, I understand that. But the link to the sock puppet one was gratuitous. The Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse should have covered it. This is the gratuitous link to a talk page:

• For more information on Mattisse's sockpuppetry: Sockpuppets of Mattisse, [4]

It has been stated in the past by User:Salix alba and others that this link was to be dropped and not used hound me for mistakes far in the past. I was blocked for 24 hours because of it. My debt for my mistakes has been paid and the incident has been over for 2 1/2 years. There was no legitimate reason to include it, except to allow an editor try to make a case that I have been evil, corrupt and a disservice to wikipedia since May 2006 when I started editing. It is just a link to a talk page posting, not a checkuser. If the version of the RFC that Casliber originated had been used [5], then there would have been a possibility of dealing with specific issues and something positive oould have resulted. Instead there was a "piling on" going way into the past that turned nasty and vindictive. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, the RfC is finished, take from it what you can. Many editors, including myself, have been dragged kicking and screaming before RfC, and AN/I. It's really no big deal, but it does give you a guide as to what is considered to be acceptable behaviour in this mad house. Who knows, you may be right, and there really is a massive conspiracy against you, with the sole aim of forcing you away from wikipedia. On the other hand it's at least as likely that there are a great many editors with whom you've worked succcessfully and productively in the past who are distressed to see you persist in your allegations of favouritism and cabalism. You decide. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The good part is all the support I have received. My opinion about the major players has plummeted even further. But as Ottava Rima has said many times (and I truly mean no disrespect to Ottava as I have great regard for that editor), I have received many, many emails. This time you have chosen the forces of evil, but as Encouragement from a former foe (below) illustrates, you never know who your friends are until it comes down to it. Ironically, most of the editors mentioned in the RFC as treated badly by me, have contacted me one way or another with the warmest of messages. And many solicited to support the RFC did not do so. I am much appreciative of all the positive support I have received. Warmest Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Trunks (Dragon Ball)

I dont want to bother, but the Trunks article still needs some work before a copy-edit. The article needs some thing such as fixing and adding refs.Tintor2 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you want me to do. I can start now or I can wait until you are ready. How close to ready are you? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, I personally feel some of your copy-editing skills could prep the article first. It would certainly help me look over a few things. User:Sarujo will take of the refs later, as we've been discussing on his talk page. Your response? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried some, but I will need some guidance. I left a message on the article talk page. I'm sure as I read through it more I will become more familiar with it as I did eventually with Sagara Sanosuke whom I grew to really like! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement from a "former foe"

Mattisse, I might be one of the last people you want to hear from right now (considering our sometimes turbulent past) but I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know that despite all that, I still recognize that you provide many useful and helpful services to Wikipedia. We all can get emotional/impassioned at times (lord knows I am guilty) and I hope that the RFC (of which I had no intention of taking part) does not drive you away from the Wiki project for good. Most of us make up a beneficial link in the proverbial Wiki-chain and even though we have had our share of past edit-battles, I recognize that you bring many beneficial attributes to the overall wiki endeavor. It is my hope that this short message serves as a second olive branch (the first being my unilateral apology long ago) that should we work together in the future, I would hope it is with a fresh slate. Best regards.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank you very much, Redthoreau, and also I did get kind words of support from User:Coppertwig in my RFC. Did you notice how I tried to help you out during your recent block? (The admin was unreasonable about the time duration.) But I have noticed that you have learned a very good way of dealing with other editors. I think you and I are somewhat alike in that we are "impassioned" at times. I gratefully accept your olive branch and your message of support is much appreciated. (It is almost worth having an RFC to receive messages such as this one from you.) If we work together in the future, it will be with a fresh slate! Thank you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement

Without having checked all the details of it, that RFC looks like some people trying to silence criticism they don't like hearing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think you are right, but I also think I need to more carefully word my posts when I am frustrated. Sometimes that is hard to do when I have put a lot of work into an article. But I have learned from the RFC and I am really appreciative of the support I received! Thanks for taking the time to post here. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rickey Henderson

Since you did a GA review of the Rickey Henderson article in August, I was hoping you might have a look at it due to an edit war regarding the intro. Another editor and I are arguing over two potential versions, which can be found here and here; please have a look and offer your ideas. Thanks. MisfitToys (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly try to help with the article. Is the issue that you want to submit it to FAC and so want it to fulfill the FAC criteria? I will try to figure out what the situation is now. Fill me in about anything you think I should know. I will go through the article I really like Ricky Henderson, but I don't know a whole lot about baseball. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Che Guevara

Hi, Mattisse. I would be interested in your comments on the possible content changes being discussed at Talk:Che Guevara, for example at this thread about crimes and this thread about executions. Redthoreau asked me to comment, and I'm asking you and Polaris999. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 20:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. I am willing to "sort of" be involved in looking that the possible content changes and perhaps commenting. I take the middle road regarding Che. I think that once Castro dies and changes occur, perhaps a greater range of information will be available for building a more realistic picture of Che. The numbers of people he can be documented as having been personally involved in killing seems far less relevant than giving a fuller explanation of his activities and his political philosophies, not only in Cuba but elsewhere. So, thank you for asking me, and I will look at the proposals. Perhaps the article editors are willing to see Che as an actual person, rather than as a cult figure, or as a monster beyond or others. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Coppertwig. Thank you for removing what you objected to in the RFC. Seeing what you removed I was able to understand what it was that you did not like, as I could not figure it out before. The issue of content control in an article residing in the decisions of one or two persons is something that you and I disagree over in the Che article. In a post to me above,[6] you asked me if I would consider entering the discussion on Talk:Che Guevara. However, from my point of view the problem remains about content control in the Che article. Please see these diffs of you posts on the Che talk page as an illustration of how this seems from my point of view as if you are the referee: [7] [8] [9] When I see this is in combination with such comments as these to Redthoreau [10] [11] [12], the impression that the two of you are controlling the content of the article remains. Therefore, I must turn down your offer as, from my point of view, nothing has changed. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(I have replied to you on your talk page [13])

Moved from Coppertwig's talk page

Addendum. In thinking more about this over night, I realized this quote from a very recent post from Redthoreau to Polaris999 also reinforces my evaluation of the degree the article was controlled in the past to the exclusion of most input by other editors: I am even willing to cede to your judgment on all matters Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't see how my saying you're welcome to edit the article, and Redthoreau saying to Polaris999 that RT is willing to cede to P9's judgement on all matters, can be seen as an indication of me and Redthoreau owning the article: it looks like the opposite to me. Could you explain? ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I just posted to you on my page[14] and got an edit conflict with you! Let me read what you wrote above and respond. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am mixed up here as to which post I am answering so I will answer the one above on this page.

Answer re Redthoreau post

Redthoreau's welcoming Polaris999 to edit an article[15] that Polaris999 created and has by far the greatest number of edits to seems unnecessary in ordinary situations, as on Wikipedia everyone is welcome to edit an article. Therefore, it seems to me to be an implicit acknowledgment that Redhoreau feels he has given the impression of article ownership. And the offer is made some six months(?) after Polaris999 stopped feeling welcome to edit there. To say that he is willing to cede to the judgment of Polaris999 seems to be in recognition that he has been unwilling, for the most part, to do so before. It also clearly only pertains to Polari999, to whom Redthoreau has always been deferential in words, if not in actions. Therefore, other editors are not included. (If this post does not seem that I am assuming good faith, then please forgive my post. I apologize and I will strike it out upon request.) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer to Coppertwig post [16]

I hope my post on my page answered this question.[17] If not, please let me know so I can explain more. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Now I understand what you meant! That does make sense.

However, I don't agree. If someone has been saying that there have been article ownership issues, then obviously there is an impression, in at least one person's mind, of article ownership issues. To acknowledge the existence of this impression (because someone has been saying so) is quite a different thing from acknowledging that there are actually article ownership issues.

Redthoreau made a very generous offer to Polaris999: to cede to Polaris999's judgement on all issues. Editors don't usually do that, but discuss and negotiate when there are disagreements. There's no reason why Redthoreau should make this same offer to any or all other editors. Not doing so is not in any way "owning" the article, but is normal behaviour of editors who work together, discuss and try to find consensus together. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! Rethoreau's post to Polaris999[18] speaks for itself as to the impression he feels he may have given. And so will whatever response he gets from Polaris999 as to whether his offer to cede control is meaningful at this point. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mattisse. When I look at those diffs, I just see myself doing the same kinds of things I do on all articles: commenting on article content, saying that I think POV tags should be associated with lists of things needing to be fixed, gently commenting on comments to other editors that I think might be problematic, etc. I don't know what it is about those diffs that you consider to be "content control". The first diff in particular looks to me like just the opposite of content control: I'm telling you that you're free to edit the article. If you tell me specifically what it is that you consider to be problematic in my behaviour, I can consider changing my behaviour. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 04:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for you to change your behavior. As you say, this is how you proceed on all articles, determining gently, but nonetheless determining, how things should be. I am just expressing my point of view. To me it gives the distinct feeling that you and Redthoreau own the page (this is just my view), with you as the referee (very gently as you say) and coaching Redthoreau on the side. The two of you appear to agree and alternative views do not seem to make it to the page. Therefore, it is impossible for me to return to that situation; there is not a way I can contribute under such conditions. I hope you do not see this as my not assuming good faith. I am merely reliving my previous experience on Talk:Che Guevara and choosing not to repeat that experience. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think I see the pattern: the diffs you provided are generally examples where I'm trying to influence the behaviour of other editors in one way or another. If Redthoreau and I tend to agree on content issues, then we need other editors such as yourself who can bring in other POVs. What if you and I both agree to avoid making any comments that attempt to influence other editors' behaviour or criticize other editors in connection with the Che Guevara article, initially for a one-month trial period to see how things go? Note that there are one or two other new editors, so this may be a good time to be able to get alternative POVs expressed in the article, which may in turn help encourage the new editors to continue.

It's interesting that you see my comments to Redthoreau as "coaching"; I would call them "criticizing", and would stop making that type of comment if we make an agreement such as I suggest above. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)

• Coincidentally, I just posted this to your page: [19]!!!

Later

I understand that you see your input as "criticizing" rather than "coaching" but it has the effect of promoting the inclusion of the POV content that apparently you and Redthoreau both want on the page, and excluding that of other editors. This practice has resulted in massive POV in the Che Guevara article.

Although I remain extremely interested in both Castro and Che, I can not consider being part of an opposing POV team. First, I am not willing to engage in POV arguments. I am a more academic writer and seek to understand, not persuade. I prefer a collaborative approach, with individual POVs not so apparent, and with no one in charge of refereeing, or making the final decisions controlling the article. Second, I would never consider entering dispute resolution over Che Guevara, to which anyone seriously challenging the article's POV would have to resort. However, thank you for asking me to consider your idea. Remember though, my last few posts on this page contributed to my current RFC so I am very unlikely ever to feel free to post on Talk:Che Guevara again! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• My answer to Coppertwig's post[20] on Coppertwig's page.[21]

... or maybe you'd like some other type of agreement. You might want to see if Redthoreau is also willing to agree to some conditions. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I'm saying this because you mentioned me in the mentorship section of the RfC: you're welcome to ask me for help and advice about any aspect of Wikipedia. I can understand that you might not want my advice, and anyway there are parts of Wikipedia you know more about than I do. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 03:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, I'm not sure if I've said this yet but thanks for the fixes you made to Slammiversary (2008). I've been here a year today, and in that time I've gotten one FA and four GAs. Maybe before the night is over it will be five GAs. (reply on my page if you don't mind).--WillC 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I will reply on your page as requested. But congratulations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm probably not going to take it to FAC for a while, but plans change. Why were you in trouble after a year?--WillC 02:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How much do you really want to know!! For a glimpse (if there is a time you are bored and have nothing else to do) read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse. The editors that filed that RFC were Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati, I learned in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood. A long story! —Mattisse (Talk) 05:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Marble Madness on main page

Thanks. To be honest though, I've always been wary of getting articles on the main page because they get vandalized so much. But it is still nice to see it there. Thanks again for the help getting it to FA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

I know! A double-edged sword! I've been watching but figured you could handle it for now. but I will always keep my eye on it. Another article I was involved with Frank Zappa seems a magnet for vandals even now, months after the main page, and the primary editor, every once in a while, just reverts to the last stable version. Sometimes I feel as emotionally involved as the primary editor does. I really like your article! It may not be as bad as Zappa for attracting vandals and you may get some useful edits to it. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Masa Saito

Thanks for reviewing this article. I have looked for more personal information, but there's not a lot. I have found a good source for him being married to Michi Saito, but that's about all of the personal information that appears to be available (aside from the arrest). I'm not going to go to GAR, because I think you make a good case for it not having enough depth to interest the average reader. I was interested to see if it would meet the GA criteria, but apparently it's not there yet. Thanks again. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was the case, as normally you are not at a loss for information! Is there more info on his wrestling style, what made him different, why was he so good as to win so many championships? —Mattisse (Talk) 05:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Great Mosque of Gaza

Wow! Thanks so much for the positive review, glad you enjoyed it! It's like the jewel of Gaza, shame what's going on. Anyhow, regards. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

John the bookmaker

I've added some generic examples to see if tactics and pitch conditions are more understandable. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, feel free to provide me with feedback. I am willing to help you out any way I can. Meanwhile, I will place the article on hold. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for spotting the discontinuities and errors that I have made around the place. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to pass it as GA if you have looked through the changes I have made and they are OK with you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's great. Thanks for spending so many hours on it. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised there are so few cricket GAs. This is only the 32nd! No wonder you are working on so many! —Mattisse (Talk) 04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I could always do with more copyeditors. Thanks again. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking through your list of article at GAN and I see you added a whole lot more. I will do at least one other, maybe more if I get the hang of cricket. Too tired right now. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought TFAR nomination

History of evolutionary thought has been nominated at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests to run on Feb 12, the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Since you were kind enough to express support for this idea during the pre-nomination debate I thought you might want to comment on the actual nomination. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes! (I am the second highest contributor to the article, after you!) —Mattisse (Talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: OverClocked ReMix

I believe that I have addressed all of your GA concerns, and the article is ready for another look. --PresN 18:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And now a third look! --PresN 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the "Good article" assessment of OverClocked ReMix! I put in some effort to improve it, but being only a casual editor, I'm glad Pres came along to fine tune things for the guidelines. I'm all about making the article the best it can be, so I suppose it's now onto improving it enough for an "A" grade down the line! Hopefully you'll check out the free music at OC ReMix sometime. Just posted out 1800th track there, and we've got more than 100 hours of free stuff across all genres. Maybe you'll find something you like. :-) But anyway, as the article hopefully continues to improve, I certainly hope I can ping you for your eagle eye, miss! Your criticisms definitely improved the quality of the article; thanks again! - Liontamer (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I saw (from following Malleus' contribs to be frank) that I came up once or twice in your FRC. Pity as the most I've seen of you before was when you did the GA review of Panic of 1907. I had palnned on asking you to help and comment on The Lucy poems, by far the most difficult article I have tackled; it was largely written by Ottava (we do fight but at the end of the day....) but we need input from a careful eye. Until I read the bits of the RfC, I had though we would get along, whatever, frankly I still think we would get likely along fine. I'm a bit prickly around the edges for sure, but ultimatly only interested in articles and compleatly and utterly uninterested in wiki-politics. Anyway the whole point of this is that when Lucy gets to GAR, and later FA, a reviewer like you would be pennys from heaven - (I'm asking for a favour here). Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm only interested in articles also. I don't do well in politics. It's when I get into political situations that I have problems, often because I have a low tolerance for cookies and fuzzy chatter and get impatient. There should be no problem between us, as I notice that you do seem to stay out of politics, so I could do copy editing for you. Let me know when. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great. You know how it is, the to do list gets longer and longer. 3 weeks. Not wanting to push my luck, but of course you would always be welcome to help with the The Raft of the Medusa FAC (cough!). Speak free on it, we want the best article we can get. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey, do you think you can check over Sacrifice (2008)? I'm going to nominate it for FAC shortly and want to make sure everything is not overlinked. Give your answer here for now because I'm in the process of working on little fixes while I read it one more time and don't want an edit conflict.--WillC 21:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can look over the article when ever you say it is time. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm done.--WillC 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Sacrifice but I'm going to withdraw the nomination and retire for a bit.--WillC 16:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me know if and when you need more help. Have a good rest! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remember that. I could be back in a week or so. It determines how long it takes me to get stuff in real life fixed.--WillC 16:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplication

Hi - regarding this edit, SandyGeorgia didn't actually remove your comments. Instead she moved them from her outside view section to your response section. Consequently your edit actually duplicated information, which now appears in the subsections on Reply accusations of racism and India and Reply by Mattisse to SandyGeorgia re accusations of racism and India. You may want to tidy this up - I don't mind doing it if you prefer.

Also, my understanding is that the allegation of a racist comment in a diff was made by Casliber, not SandyGeorgia. Have I missed something? Thanks, and sorry for bringing this reminder of the RfC to your talk page. Geometry guy 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused by the page and thought Sandy had removed my comments. I mistakenly though she removed them, as she often removes my comments to another page in other situations. I am sorry. I have a hard time finding my way around that RFC page. My computer is too small, my connection too slow, or something. As far as who made the racial accusations, I assumed it was Sandy as it was over an article/issue with which we were both involved and had interacted before. I never had any involvement with Casliber prior to the MDD article, and I do not know how he got his information against me. However, so many of Casliber's accusations came from situations that involved Sandy, so he may have made the actual accusations. I don't know how he assembled information. Sandy apparently looked through my every edit, back to May of 2006 when I started here. I am confused as to who accused me of what. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restructured the section to eliminate the duplication and (hopefully) clarify the chronology. I hope I did an okay job, and did not make any mistakes. If you have any objections to my change, feel free to revert or modify accordingly. Geometry guy 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am not even going to look at it. I am sure your judgment is better than mine anyway, as to where it should go. I don't even want to think about it. Thank you so very much. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The RFC

Hey Mattisse. You have much to give Wikipedia - indeed, you have already given much. I haven't been paying much attention to the RFC after I left a couple of comments, but I did notice that you had me down on a list of those you would consider as mentors, and I did think about it. I thought very seriously about it as I really do think you are a net benefit to the project. But I'm not sure you'd listen to me. I really don't. I don't think you'd ignore my advice, or be confrontational, or do anything really nasty. But I think you get a bit hot headed now and again when something stirs you up, and you'd go off and do your own thing. And I don't think I could deal with that. I wondered, though, if we could talk on-Wiki about some of the problems you've been having. Problems with what may be called the "senior" Wikipedians, such as Sandy.

I think it would be helpful to explore the issues to see where your relationship with her (and any others you'd like to talk about) broke down. To see how much was your fault, how much was her fault, and how much was misunderstanding or circumstances.

But I wouldn't like to do that against a background of confrontation and ill-feeling. I feel it will be a tricky enough route anyway, and will involve a lot of reading, and some communication with Sandy herself. If I'm doing that against a background of you making comments about her, that would just sidetrack discussions, and we wouldn't get anywhere.

Would you be willing to discuss your issues regarding Sandy with me? I could set up a sub-page for us to talk. And would you in the meantime stop making ANY comments on the RFC (I think that RFC is doing more harm than good, and commenting on it is just feeding the bad will). Would you stop making ANY comments (good or bad) about Sandy on any page other than the one I set up where you can talk freely about Sandy. But, until we resolve this issue, would you be able to stop talking about her elsewhere?

Have a think about it and get back to me on my talkpage. Regards. SilkTork *^YES! 20:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Janszoon voyage of 1606

Thanks for reviewing. I don't know quite what you mean by "removing templates". Cite templates are more or less required under WP:MOS. The article also contain geographical coordinate templates (which you can skip over while reading, but are uselful to some) and quote templates (which are also supported in MOS as a way of making quotes appear correctly).--Grahame (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the geographical coordinates sprinkled through out that I find distracting. I have never seen a GA or FA article with those in the body of the text. I can get another opinion if you like, but I don't think that an article can pass with those embedded in the article body. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that's OK, I'll put them in footnotes.--Grahame (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that better, or should I find a way of separating the coords from the cites?--Grahame (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Too tired to answer more tonight. I have asked another editors opinion and tomorrow I should be able to give uou a full answer. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonder article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Cquote

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re: Metroid Prime Pinball

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)

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

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)

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

Chat

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)

Lockdown (2008)

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)

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)

Going on to FAC

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Janszoon voyage of 1606

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

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

Um ...

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)

[redact and forget ugly incident]

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

[22],[23] 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Chak De India

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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

(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)

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

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)

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)

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

Battle of Hill 70

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)

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

North Sea

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)

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)

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)

Reasonable person...

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

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

Talk:Drizzt Do'Urden/GA1

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

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)

Zarqa River

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Woodes Rogers

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)

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)

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)

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

FAC reviews

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)