User talk:Mattisse

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

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

Talkback at User_talk:Tohd8BohaithuGh1

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Tohd8BohaithuGh1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: AXXo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Panic of 1907

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

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

Rosetta@home

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

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

Sagara Sanosuke

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

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

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

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

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

Agrippa (an article of the good?)

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

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

Question about GAR etiquette

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

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

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

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

FACR

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

Warhammer 40,000

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

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

Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism

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

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

Ain't We Got Fun?

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

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

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

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

LaRouche criminal trials

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

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

Eyes Without a Face

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

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

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

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

GA question

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

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

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

GANs

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

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

Rocko's Modern Life

Hi! I'm Dylan, GA nominator of the Rocko's Modern Life article. I was getting tired of waiting for comments on it, so I came to you for a GA review (I chose you over everyone else because the only GA reviews that I've seen so far were by you). If it fails the GA review, I have an additional source [1] given to me by WhisperToMe (a primary contributor to the article), and if that's still not enough, I suggest a peer review, to suggest ideas to improve the article to GA, or in time even FA. --Dylan620 (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Lafayette

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

Did you forget...?

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

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

Attachment therapy

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Good articles/recent

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

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

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

Delisting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brenda Song GAR

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

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

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

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

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