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.

Idries Shah

Hi Mattisse, I have revised the lede and the para breaks in Idries Shah. Any good? Best, Jayen466 20:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. The lead looks very good. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Refs updated. I've commented the Psychology Today paragraph out for the moment, pending verification, but hope to get a back issue from the publishers. Jayen466

23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I'll take a look. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouting

Why are you shouting in edit comments and internal notes? It is really unneccessary. /skagedal^... 16:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I have been complaining about this for over two weeks, both on the FAC page and on the article talk pages, and have gotten nowhere. My complains have not been addressed, in fact, they have been completely ignored with no replies. Except, I was personally attacked for complaining about the misuse of primary sources in the Rating scale section. I am very frustrated at the way sources are used to mislead in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Friendly question

Must you use ALL CAPS in edit summaries? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will not use all caps. However, in the past my internal comments have been ignored and removed without any comment. This time I am actually getting a response for the first time!!! —Mattisse (Talk) 16:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, all right. Sorry for the duplicate message. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I preferred caps... they are easier to search for: anyway I think they are a good idea. I'll try to search for as many secondary sources as I can. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthropod GA review

As far as I can see nothing's happened since 3 Nov. Do we have a misunderstanding about whose move it is? --Philcha (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you addressed all the issues I listed? A quite scan of the article suggests many have not been addressed, and you do not say on the GA review page, eg. the white space issues. I have done some copy editing but not through the entire article. I will add more comments on the review page. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help, and for being willing to take on such a big article. --Philcha (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome. The article deserves GA and you have obviously put a great deal of work into it. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Art Deco

This article is listed for GAN, and I would appreciate it if you could do a review of it. If you have time, do you think you'd be able to? Thanks in advance, Elucidate ^{(light up)} 18:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume the reviewer who signed up on the GAN page is not doing the review? I can do it, if that is the case. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Doesn't look like they got round to it. Elucidate ^{(light up)} 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be unable to edit fro a few weeks due to exams and, to top it all, I will not have any internet access for a while. Is there any chance you could fix Art Deco up according to your review, and then get another independent reviewer to go through the article, so as to avoid violating the WP:GAN policy? Thanks in advance, Elucidate ^{(light up)} 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

You can withdraw the nomination. Would you like me to do that for you? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Answering your inline commented question. WP:CITE#HOW says...

Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.

The help desk is usually a good place to ask such questions. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I gather that it is not all right to mix harvard with {{Citation}}? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, if you mean {{Harvnb}} and {{Citation}}; they go together rather nicely. The no-no is to mix {{Citation}} and {{Cite}}. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm, that's not how I read the guidelines. To me it indicates that only a single format should be used within an article. Please elaborate, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it seems inconsistent. I knew they often are used together when the footnotes in the body were {{Harvnb}} and the full list of publications in the Bibliography or References are in {{citation}} style. But with {{citation}} mixed into the article body, the publications are also listed in the Bibliography, but the full information is again given in the footnote itself. I didn't know that it is ok in the article body to have some of the citations with {{Harvnb}}, hopping to the Bibliography and while those using {{citation}} do not. Therefore, some listings in the Bibliography never get "hopped" to, while others do. It seems to me less than optimal and inconsistent for an FAC. (Personal opinion.) Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think for FAC that might be flagged as a problem. The best solution IMO is to always put published sources (books, journals) into the bibliography section and only use the {{Citation}} template in the body of the article for things like web sources. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess I will take your suggestion and go to the help desk! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Malleus's suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Using one consistent method in the body and another for the bibliography seems to make sense. Most of the references in the body will probably be web links. Those in the bibliography will, by definition, be offline publications and might benefit from a different format. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• (outdent) Yes it does. But the FAC Major depressive disorder uses some {{Harvnb}} and some {{citation}} in the body of the article, resulting in the "hop to" inconsistency described above, even though the Feature article criteria state: "2(c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended)."

Seems clear, but you never know! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Mattisse. I appreciate your assistance in dealing with that edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lockdown (2008)

Thanks for the help on Lockdown (2008). I did not notice the overlinking problems and I had no idea what to link to instead of disambiguity pages.--WillC 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you did a copyedit(?) to the above article, is it possible to do the same for Over the Edge (1999).--S_RX 00:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SRX, maybe later. Your article already looks very good! And it is about an interesting event. What are your goals for the article? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

My goal is for it to be promoted as an FA. It is currently under peer review.--S_RX 00:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks good and I will run through the article. Since Lockdown (2008) has just entered FAC, I am not sure how the FAC people will regard another wrestling article so soon. Watch what happens there so you can see what their reaction is. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I will wait for that one to either be archived or wait for until it is in the bottom 5. About a month ago, there were 3 FAC's at the same time, which fed up the reviewers, only one passed. But I have experience with FAC, I contributed to helping pass SummerSlam (2003) and No Way Out (2004) to FA. OTE is unique from others due to the nature surrounding it, hopefully that can be seen at FAC.--S_RX 01:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you didn't have time? =-)--TRU_CO 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Okay, I haven't really read the full MOS page, I have a short attention span and can't sit still for as long as it will take to read that entire thing. Thanks for the help. Also I'm not sure Sacrifice (2008) should be italicised. I believe there is a rule against that. I don't have the link for it, but I believe pay-per-view events such as Sacrifice do not fall under the category to have italics.--WillC 00:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the italics, as I saw it was not in italics at other places. The link I sent you basically says wikilink as little as possible. Only wikilink once to any given word. Do not wikilink common words that an English speaking person would know, not even countries that most people know. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the professional wrestling has had a problem with overlinking. I myself don't know when I've overlinked or not. I tend to try to figure out what would be quick reference and what isn't so I know. I linked Sacrifice twice in the aftermath because I believed the template fell under quick reference. I still have a long way to go before I know exactly what I'm doing on here. Almost been a year and I'm still learning, wikipedia is funny like that.--WillC 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have your talk page on my watchlist. If you want to reply here, I'll know. Every page I edit becomes automatically watched.--WillC 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. FAC is very difficult. I will try and help you out, but I don't know anything about wrestling, although I havecopy edited a few wrestling articles for GA. Also, I'm not sure how the FAC people will regard a wrestling article, if they think wrestling is a good enough topic for FA. I don't want to discourage you, but just prepare yourself. Is there a wrestling editor that can help you out with the FAC? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry dude, I don't really need any help. I'm mainly the only one who works on Total Nonstop Action Wrestling articles. I've worked on all 12 of their 2008 ppvs alone. I tend to work alone. Most of the time people want me to follow their example. I don't like that. I would rather follow the criteria and learn on my own. Me and a few editors from the project have disagreements on how many matches should be in the background. I think all that got enough attention that a good paragraph can be made while they disagree. Though some feed back on the prose would be nice. That has worried me. Been working on Lockdown since May of this year. It is all starting to sound the same.--WillC 01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can go through it for prose issues. The FAC people will also point things out. I noticed one of them pointed out WP:ACCESS issues in an edit summary. Unfortunately, I could not tell what she meant, even after reading the WP:ACCESS page! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that GaryColemanFan helped you out. He is very good on wrestling. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he helped me with the GA review when the article was much larger. I don't have a problem with him, he agrees with me on the background problems. I've never heard of WP:ACCESS. I saw it and went, another article I'm going to have to read. I don't have much time in real life. That is why there are so many MOS problems. I really need to learn to sit still and read that page.--WillC 01:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the article, but I could not tell what was wrong with your article by the description given there. Basically, it is saying that article elements have to be in a certain order so that screen readers can read them. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. It doesn't matter much to me what is changed, as long as I get it to FA. I've worked on the thing long enough and went to hell and back to get it to sound right. FA is the reward for all the hard work from May. I still have 11 more to go.--WillC 01:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For all your hard work on helping fix Lockdown during its FAC. You deserve this.WillC 22:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• You are very kind. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it is the least I can do for you helping me out.--WillC 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Faith Leech

Hello Mattisse, I have repsonded to your concerns. Thanks, YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And some more. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Date for FAC of Major depressive disorder

Hi Mattisse! I'm wondering what you meant with this comment. You provide a link to a version of the article, but how does that say that it is in FAC? As far as I know, FAC shouldn't even be mentioned in the article space, only listed at the talk page, where it was added the 19th: [1]... The FAC page was created on the 19th, so I don't understand what you're saying here... /skagedal^... 16:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the top of that October 14 version, it says "Currently a featured article candidate." That template appears when an article is listed for FAC, as you can tell by looking at any listed FAC. So, I am curious that the automatic template appeared on the October 14 version. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This text does not appear for me, not on the October 14 version, not on the current version, not on other articles listed at FAC, such as Primate. Only at the talk pages. Not sure what's going on here. So are you saying this appears on the October 14 version, but not on earlier versions? What changed on October 14? Just trying to understand here... :) /skagedal^... 18:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not have checked "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article. (documentation)" under Preferences > Gadgets > User interface gadgets. However, on the October 14 version, it first appears as "Currently a featured article candidate." —Mattisse (Talk) 18:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that explains a lot. Useful tool! After having enabled this gadget, I see the text "Currently a featured article candidate" under the headline; however, I see it on all versions of the article, including the oldest available version from 2001. /skagedal^... 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Humm. You are right. I guess it gets transcluded to all versions. I am wrong. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok! :-) /skagedal^... 19:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On repeating yourself

Re: [2] – you've already said that, and it has nothing to do with the stylistic issue I was raising here.

On a similar note: on the FAC page, SandyGeorgia addressed you with: "Mattisse has multiple sections, which I consolidated earlier this week to six sections. None of Mattisse's past sections have been struck. If she will confirm that her 7th section summarized all previous and ongoing concerns, I will move the earlier six to talk and leave a link. Also, reviewers should strike or cap resolved concerns. You have not replied to this, instead you have started two new sections.

We all have the same goal of improving Wikipedia and covering the topic of depression in the best possible way. I admire your attention to detail, and I agree with many of the issues you have raised. But why not just simply state your objections, preferrably on just one place? I don't understand why you are so frustrated (as you have said). If your concerns are addressed, then you should strike the issue on FAC. If they are not addressed—well, they will stay there, not striked-out, for the FA director to take into account. /skagedal^... 15:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not have to repeat myself if my comments were directly answered. However, from the beginning my comments have either been ignored or argued with on the FAC page, or answered with a change in subject. I have been personally attacked by Calisber in a rant on the FAC page. I have participated in many FACs and never have my comments not been responded to directly and in a timely fashion. Any response in this FAC I have received has been off topic and not responsive to my comment. This FAC has been a totally different experience than any other. I do not know how to get responses to my comments. What do you suggest, given that my talk page and FAC comments are ignored? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. At the FAC page, if I take as an example the first bunch of your comments, those under "Mattisse 1"—all of those issues have been at least commented on by Casliber, most if not all of them seem resolved as well. Still, none of them have been marked as "done" by you, as WP:FAC reccommends: Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header [...]. Maybe that gives the impression that you will never be satisfied...? /skagedal^... 16:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He has not addressed my comments. Mostly he changed the subject to something irrelevant. I am now the fourth largest contributor to the article because I fixed many things myself. However, Calisber never addressed them and still has not addressed most of them as far as I know. The talk page became so cluttered, that I cannot find by own comments anymore. But I think, if you go back through the page, refactored as it has been, and some personal attacks on me removed, you will not find under my comments a direct response for Calisber relevant to my comment. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I will go back through the page and strike any that he has addressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that! /skagedal^... 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have completed it for the most part now. So much was argued or not addressed directly, some was probably reworded for other reasons then my objections. At the time my objections did not result in the article change. But so much has been reworded since then for other reasons, that my complaints may have been taken care of for other reasons. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sweeping statement; apology requested

Your allegation, made on the MDD FAC,

I think this reason of "I owed Casliber this one" is a common reason for the "Supports" of this article.

is unspecific and made without supplying evidence. I am offended, as one of the supports, to have my review contribution diminished by this broad allegation. I request you strike that text and apologise. Colin°^Talk 17:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if anyone was offended. I was merely quoting from the last "Support". I think I am owed an apology for the multiple personal attacks on me by "Cas" and Cosmic Latte. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to take that up with them on their talk pages. However, your offending remarks have not been struck through. They will remain in the FAC archive long after your talk page is archived and forgotten. I repeat my request that you strike that text. Colin°^Talk 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has struck through their personal attacks against me. Although "Cas" apologized briefly for his worst rant against me, he has subsequently made more personal attacks against me and neither apologized or struck out. Why should this be a one way street? Why does not Cosmic Latte have to apologize for accusing me of making personal attacks and Ad hominem ⋅attacks? Your request seems strangely biased. Can you not be objective? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)