User talk:ItsLassieTime

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ItsLassieTime! I am Collectonian and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

WP:WAF Wikipedia:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Characters Collectonian (talk) 11:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Television Manual of Style Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Greetings! Just wanted to day "nice work!" on The Mansion of Happiness. I tidied up one or two things, and think that you should nominate this article for Good article status. I think it's there (or pretty close) to that standard now. Having seen what you did for this article, I had a quick look at some of your other work, such as Cootie and Play-doh and think that you might want to consider nominating those articles for GA status as well. They might need a bit of work in terms of adding a few section headers as appropriate, but those both look quite good now. Cheers! --Craw-daddy | T | 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Donna Reed Show

Awesome job on the recent work you did on The Donna Reed Show. It looks and reads much better! Pinkadelica ^{Say it...} 10:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ruth Martin (Lassie)/GA1

I started the review. Check it out. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added another comment. I purged the page so it now appears on the talk page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the review. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinderbox

I did a bit with your article. Hope you don't mind. You can read me the riot act if I'm interfering. Good luck with the nomination.ReverendLogos (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have given The Tinderbox an immediate "fail", but I'm notorious as a defender of lost causes. In order for The Tinderbox to pass its next GA review, which you have already requested, you will have to do an huge amount of work. It's possible - I rescued Spider from demotion when a lower % had citations than The Tinderbox has, and big gaps and chunks of conventional wisdom that turned out to be wrong; but it took me 2 weeks' hard work. You will need to show that serious improvements have been made and at least half the problems Mattisse found have been fixed before the next GA review starts, otherwise you risk another immediate "fail".

One way to get things done efficiently is good planning and preparation. At Talk:Evolutionary history of life (admittedly for a much larger article) I created sections "Outline for possible rewrite" which summarised what needed to be covered and in what order, and "Sources and snippets" listing sources by topic, with one-line comments about what they were good for. Then I did some serious searching, mainly via Google Scholar.

All the best, --Philcha (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I NOTICED MATTISSE HAS HIS OR HER NAME ON SEVERAL ARTICLES AS A REVIEWER ON THE GA NOMINATIONS PAGE. MAYBE MATISSE IS TAKING ON TOO MUCH. HOW ABOUT ONE ARTICLE AT A TIME INSTEAD OF THREE? HOW ABOUT ONE EVERY OTHER WEEK RATHER THAN THREE AN HOUR? SUCH A PACE CAN BURN ONE OUT AND GIVE RISE TO SIMPLY DISMISSING ARTICLES WITH A FAIL. ItsLassieTime (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse generally does at least as much reviewing as editing. A large part of the elapsed time in most reviews is waiting for improvements or responses from editors. So she gets on with something else in the meantime, usually another review. She's not unusual in that - most regular reviewers have a few reviews on the go at the same time - I think my own maximum has been 4 or 5. --Philcha (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I am truly sorry for not doing the right thing regarding The Tinderbox. I did see the problems as massive but I should have given you a chance to fix them. I am very glad and relieved that you are taking Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ruth Martin (Lassie)/1‎ in the right spirit and fixing the problems. I understand being upset, as I have been known to get upset also. I hope we can put this unfortunate incident behind us. That is what I want. (I did pass your Eerie (comics) after all, because I admired that little article!) Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 03:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Plot material does not have to be cited. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 04:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pal GA review

Hey ItsLassieTime. I've reviewed the Pal (dog actor) GAN and, while I think this article is a good start and has some excellent potential, I don't think it's ready for GA status yet. I've outlined my issues in the review page. Rather than fail it right away, however, I wanted to give you the chance to take a look at my suggestions. My recommendation would be to fail it for this first time, then you can take your time, consult other sources and improve the article at your own pace; when you are ready to nominate it again, I would be more than happy to review it at that time. However, if you really prefer, we can leave it On Hold while you go through my suggestions and improve it.

Like I said, I wanted to give you the opportunity to let me know what you prefer. Please let me know your preference, but either way, I'm confident this will eventually earn a GA status down the road. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ItsLassieTtme, I probably won't have time to look it over until tonight or tomorrow, but I just wanted to assure that I will not fail it unless I discuss it with you first. Cheers! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, ItsLassieTime, the article has passed. Well done; you deserve a lot of credit for sticking with the article, even when I thought it might not pass. I'm also glad to see you've added another source on top of the ones I added! I looked over your changes and they are all fine, although I readded a wikilink to Robert Maxwell that you removed; that should be wikilinked according to the MOS, which is a requirement for a GA review. Otherwise, it's all good. Nice work! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hi, ItsLassieTime, I just wanted to give you a little friendly advice. I've seen that you have a tendency to reply to GAC comments in ALL BOLD CAPS. While I understand the sentiment (everyone wants their comments to be noticed and not just ignored), the text is unsightly and not reader-friendly. As it states on WP:TALK (a behavioral guideline), we should avoid excessive markup on talkpages as it undermines argument. It also has the added effect that you are shouting, which might not be your intended effect. I'm sure your reviewers, or random people who just wander by like myself, would appreciate it if you just typed normally. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. I type in caps so I can see my response quickly on the page among other texts. No offense is intended. ItsLassieTime (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps try indenting further or adding hidden comments? The markup you use simply does not make for easy communication; were I reviewing an article you nominated, for example, I would think that it would hinder my ability to comprehend what it is you're saying, and therefore slow down the process. No one wants that, right? Not to mention it's rather irritating. Again, just some friendly advice, but don't be surprised if someone else brings it up. María (habla conmigo) 13:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will discontinue the CAPS. ItsLassieTime (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks much for the Barnstar for Pal (dog actor)! That really wasn't necessary, but I do very much appreciate it. Frankly, I really enjoyed reviewing Pal (dog actor) and found it pretty rewarding to get it to GA status. I also meant to tell you that, as you yourself pointed out, the Lassie article could use some work, and I think some time down the road you should consider tackling that one yourself. Obviously, that one will require more non-Pal sources, but I think you'd be the person for the job. Good job, once again! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say thanks, as well, for the kind words. :) I'm glad to have helped. Best of luck in the future, María (habla conmigo) 19:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

For helping with so much. I'm taking some time away from Wikipedia because of a new job assignment. Feel free to access my articles and work them up to GA status if you wish. You're a blessing! ReverendLogos (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]