→Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite: reply to Philcha |
Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) →Thank you: new section |
||
Line 330: | Line 330: | ||
==Pronouns== |
==Pronouns== |
||
May I ask are you a male or female yourself? I'm a she. Your name gives nothing away to me. The "isse" at the end sounds like something at the end of the name of many African American women.--[[User:Hfarmer|Hfarmer]] ([[User talk:Hfarmer|talk]]) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
May I ask are you a male or female yourself? I'm a she. Your name gives nothing away to me. The "isse" at the end sounds like something at the end of the name of many African American women.--[[User:Hfarmer|Hfarmer]] ([[User talk:Hfarmer|talk]]) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Thank you == |
|||
... for your kind words about DYK. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] {{toolbar|separator=dot|[[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] | [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]] }} 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:42, 16 April 2009
![]() |
---|
8 June 2024 |
No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online |
|
Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
---|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can . |
Chotiner oppose
There is an oppose on the Chotiner FAC that I've not seen before, an oppose because the image in the infobox is fair use, and that it (according to the objector) should be possible to get a FedGov copyright photo of Chotiner (how, he doesn't explain). I've responded, but I'd be very glad for your advice on how to deal with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have seen that done rather frequently lately, but I have never seen it hold up an article from passing. Some resolution can surely be attained. You could put a bang up fair use rational there. How the picture shows information in the article that simply cannot be explained through words. User:Rjanag is going through a similar Oppose at FAC Street newspaper with an editor who is challenging his use of newspaper pics. The editor is refusing to accept his justifications. At worst, you could remove the pic, as it is not required for an FA to have a picture. I believe it all lies in having a complete fair use rationale. Why is the editor objecting so sure there must be a free image around? I will try to think of ideas. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think he has read the article, and realized that Chotiner was in a Federal position for only two years. The rest of the time he was a backroom guy, an electon geek. Chotiner did not make himself very public, especially in his final years.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have to say that there is no free use photo available, that your use of it will not infringe on the copyright owner's commercial opportunities, that you are using a low resolution version of the photo, that it meets Wikipedia: Image policy, etc. Everything it says at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. There is a nice little form somewhere that you can use. Perhaps I can find it on a current picture and copy it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, if you would, I'd be grateful. I'm going to point out that there are no free use photos on WP of the three other men who served as White House Counsel with Chotiner, though only two have articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm gong to try to take care of the specific concerns Tony addresses in his comments in the Chotiner FAC in the next few hours. Do you think you could run through the article and give it a once-over as he suggests? I don't think he wants anything really deep, and is generally satisfied, just a fresh set of eyes. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, after you are done. If you can make the wording as specific as possible, that will help. Many of his concerns I wondered about also. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm done. But a lot of it was due to Brian's complaint I was using the name "Chotiner" too often. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- It passed! And I even spent an hour and a half at the National Archives this afternoon, hoping they'd have a free use photo of him, which they didn't. Thanks so much for your help. Woot!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are very welcome! I am so glad (although I knew it would!) It is good for your moral fiber to spend time in the National Archives, but why is this guy so obscure? He is not even mentioned in Nixon's Wikipedia biograpy. Maybe you should insert him. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- His philosophy was that a good campaign manager should neither be seen nor heard. The National Archives is an immensely great place to visit. Just so much there! I mostly spent time in the image room, now that I have a researcher card (anyone can get one), plan on going back.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Chotiner certainly succeeded in implementing his philosophy then. So you were right about there being no existing official photograph. Well, who is next? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- His philosophy was that a good campaign manager should neither be seen nor heard. The National Archives is an immensely great place to visit. Just so much there! I mostly spent time in the image room, now that I have a researcher card (anyone can get one), plan on going back.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are very welcome! I am so glad (although I knew it would!) It is good for your moral fiber to spend time in the National Archives, but why is this guy so obscure? He is not even mentioned in Nixon's Wikipedia biograpy. Maybe you should insert him. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It passed! And I even spent an hour and a half at the National Archives this afternoon, hoping they'd have a free use photo of him, which they didn't. Thanks so much for your help. Woot!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm done. But a lot of it was due to Brian's complaint I was using the name "Chotiner" too often. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, after you are done. If you can make the wording as specific as possible, that will help. Many of his concerns I wondered about also. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm gong to try to take care of the specific concerns Tony addresses in his comments in the Chotiner FAC in the next few hours. Do you think you could run through the article and give it a once-over as he suggests? I don't think he wants anything really deep, and is generally satisfied, just a fresh set of eyes. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, if you would, I'd be grateful. I'm going to point out that there are no free use photos on WP of the three other men who served as White House Counsel with Chotiner, though only two have articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have to say that there is no free use photo available, that your use of it will not infringe on the copyright owner's commercial opportunities, that you are using a low resolution version of the photo, that it meets Wikipedia: Image policy, etc. Everything it says at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. There is a nice little form somewhere that you can use. Perhaps I can find it on a current picture and copy it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The Archives did give me the following memo signed by Chotiner:
The White House Washington April 2, 1970
For: H.R. Haldeman From: Murray Chotiner Johnny Cash is great with a certain block of voters in Tennessee.
Obviously he will not say or do anything against Tex Ritter, who is running for the U.S. Senate against Congressman Bill Brock, for the GOP nomination.
At the Johnny Cash Evening at the White House, it will be most helpful if privatelythe President can neutralize Johnny Cash so he does not campaign for Tex Ritter. It will also be helpful if he could come into Tennessee after the primary.
Murray. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Humm. That is interesting. Supports your theory that 1. he did exist, and 2. he was definitely behind the scenes. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I may scan that memo, the typewritten portion is only about 3 inches square and use it for the TFA blurb photo when the time comes. The other memo they gave me is dated 1969, it is Chotiner to Ehrlichman and Dent, announcing he has been able to secure the minutes of the last Democratic National Committee executive meeting, thanks to "operator 41". Except, Chotiner reports, page five is missing and 41 is out of town. He is something else!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It must be strange to come across some real from this man with whom you have been preoccupied for so long. Even I fee strange about it. A verification. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I'm not gonna haunt his grave, bringing flowers. I find it freaky when the guy at the archives knew who I was talking about. Most people are "Murray Who?" I think using a cropped image of the Cash memo, including the words "neutralize Johnny Cash" and the signature, will work as a TFA blurb photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It must be strange to come across some real from this man with whom you have been preoccupied for so long. Even I fee strange about it. A verification. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I may scan that memo, the typewritten portion is only about 3 inches square and use it for the TFA blurb photo when the time comes. The other memo they gave me is dated 1969, it is Chotiner to Ehrlichman and Dent, announcing he has been able to secure the minutes of the last Democratic National Committee executive meeting, thanks to "operator 41". Except, Chotiner reports, page five is missing and 41 is out of town. He is something else!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think of you as the bring flowers type. That scanned image would be great for the TFA. It brings the reality home that your article is describing a real guy who acted in the way you describe. (You could look up his descendants, interview what is left of his four wives - no need to stop now!) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, too late. I started work on expanding Checkers speech last night, though it is far from done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to go for FAC on that? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ha ha, not quite yet. In a while. Images are going to be a pain on that one, but I think I can justify fair use screencaps. But it is going to be a pain figuring out how to deal with the speech itself. I'm always thinking about FAC on any serious article (not just a DYK throwaway).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't you get a TV shot of Nixon's mug giving the speech? I suppose there would be copy right issues. How about a pix of a good Republican cloth coat? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that it would be hard to verify that the coat was Republican and the RNC apparently holds the copyright on the broadcast ... cross that when we come to it. My proposed blurb and image for Chotiner TFA is in User:Wehwalt/Sandbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't you get a TV shot of Nixon's mug giving the speech? I suppose there would be copy right issues. How about a pix of a good Republican cloth coat? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ha ha, not quite yet. In a while. Images are going to be a pain on that one, but I think I can justify fair use screencaps. But it is going to be a pain figuring out how to deal with the speech itself. I'm always thinking about FAC on any serious article (not just a DYK throwaway).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to go for FAC on that? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SNL "seal of quality": [1].
As
I reversed "as" in your edit here (it will work with or without the 's). "as much as a third" out-Googles "as much a third" by 1,960,000 to 164, so perhaps English isn't your native language. Art LaPella (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your edit looks wrong to me, incorrect American English anyway, but you're the boss! "as much a third"? I did remove the 's. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, "as much a third" looks wrong to me also; that's why I reverted to "as much as a third", which I showed is thousands of times more common. Art LaPella (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad you added that! Almost 100% of the time I can trust my instincts, even if I can't explain why in fancy grammatical terms. British English is a mysterious thing, and my confusion is not help by my partial education in Britain where I was punished by teachers for American English. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Pederasty category
I did not think that was a refinement. How were those categories not appropriate? Haiduc (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- What specifically are you referring to? I moves it out of Category:Sexuality and age because the category name is not very descriptive. It has age related issues in sexuality, and then things like Child sex abuse, etc. Is that what you are referring to? It can go back Category:Sexuality and age if you want. Looking at what is left there, it seems to be a mixed bag of deviant behavior. I just thought the category name was too vague. Also, the whole category Category:Human sexuality has a big tag on in to encourage a cleaning up of the categories to make them more precise and descriptive. Do you have some good suggestions? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in order of appearance, it is a very intimate relationship, it is a form of sexuality that essentially involves issues of age, and it certainly has been used by a number of cultures as a rite of passage. Removing them makes the cat less precise and descriptive. The only cat that I am less sure about is one you left, "sexuality and society." Seems like a truism. After all, what sexuality is not related to society?! Haiduc (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- So you think the whole category Category:Sexuality and society should be removed as obvious and unnecessary? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in order of appearance, it is a very intimate relationship, it is a form of sexuality that essentially involves issues of age, and it certainly has been used by a number of cultures as a rite of passage. Removing them makes the cat less precise and descriptive. The only cat that I am less sure about is one you left, "sexuality and society." Seems like a truism. After all, what sexuality is not related to society?! Haiduc (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for processing Nidaros Cathedral West Front for DYK
Appreciate your processing Nidaros Cathedral West Front for DYK - I had begun to fear it was just too big to get anyone enthusiastic about reading/grading it. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I notice you processed this for DYK not long after I nominated it but it never has been placed on queue. Are there times that articles don't make it to DYK despite being approved? Thank you. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- The place to ask that is Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Just ask the question there as you did here. I don't have anything to do with putting hooks in queues, but my understanding is that verified hooks go into queues almost always. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello
The only good thing to come out of the Lucy wars was that I got to know F&f. The man can write and is very impressive all round; he has been a huge help to us, both in encouraging myself, Liz and Modernist, and in helping us out with prose. In the Lucy process, I fell out with Ottava, which frankly pains me, but maybe the damage is not fatal. Whatever, thanks for your kind note, and to let you know again I hope to work with you at some stage - I have already said to you that I actively seek out sharp and skilled reviewers who are unafraid to tear articles apart. Its a nice irony that well constructed oppose votes actually benifit an article more than light weight or drive by supports. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- F&F was the only editor who was willing to helped me prevent a POV article from passing FAC. To oppose was unpopular, but through the power of his intellect in expressing his opposes and his superb marshaling of evidence, we were able to succeed. I appreciate that he is willing to stick his neck out for what is right. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If u r interested, this article needs a GAN review. Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to, as you know that I like your writing. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Courtesy notice
I am not familiar with this dispute, but I'm concerned about recent comments you've made about User:Malleus Fatuorum. I have brought the matter up at AN/I. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry. I don't participate in that sort of thing. But I am sure Malleus will want to, so notify him. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
from the master of drama and the protogee of Malleus
Your opinions are requested
I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.
The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for inviting me to participate. I would have been glad to contribute, except for the outcome of my one post on your page, a comment meant to be helpful. Apparently posts on your pages followed. I cannot risk another such outcome, wanting to stay away from that kind of trouble; I personally do not get involved in AN/I drama and must refuse any offer that has that potential. Posting on your pages appears to have that result. Therefore, I will not do so in the future. Thank you for thinking of me. Under other circumstances I would be pleased to be part of your project. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The hook for the article is located approximately half way into the subsection titled Northern Mine Barrage." The paragraph it's in reads: "Postwar examination of German records would reveal that the submarine lost was either UB-113 or UB-123.[49] This strange—and accidental—encounter marked the only time in all of Battleship Division Nine's service with the Grand Fleet that one of its ships would sink a German vessel.[49]" Thanks, Jrt989 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, you accidentally used a non-free image instead of the icons listed on the page which caused Cydebot to insert a whole bunch of rationale templates. Please make sure you use subst: versions of approved icons in the future. - Mgm|(talk) 08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry but I do not think I did that. If you look at the link you sent me, [2], you will notice that those images were added by User:Cydebot. Each of those DYK hooks I have evaluated at different times. For example, the one for Herbert Kisza was entered at 19:49, the one for Guttorm Hansen at 20:13, the one for The London Eye Mystery at 20:29, the one for New Jersey County Colleges at 20:36 (and in that case someone entered below me (User:MBisanz) and I gave a follow up response at 00:48 and at that time the non-free images were not there. The next was at Oskar Gröning at 21:05, for List of papal tombs at 21:34, for Katsunori Nomura at 21:43, for United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I) at 21:54, for 2009 Pittsburgh police shooting at 22:05, for Munich Tramway at 22:31, for Duchers at 22.39. Over this time span of three hours , with me and others combing through the entries, these symbols would have been noticed if they had been there. As it was, during that time, no one noticed any wrong symbols. Everything was in order.
- Further, if you go page to the previous edit [3], you will see that all the correct symbols were there before User:Cydebot made the one edit, and that Cydebot, in that one edit, removed pictures next to the entries and inserted that symbol. I did not do that.
- Truly I am sorry that happened, but the evidences shows that I was not responsible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the bottom line seems to be, instead of using
{{icon|DYK}}
you can use{{subst:DYK?}}
when pointing out an issue with a nom. (Somewhere near the top of T:TDYK is a table of the various DYK icons: DYKtick and DYKtickAGF for verifying, DYK? and DYK?no for raising questions, and DYKno for rejecting.) If you do that, there shouldn't be any problems in the future. - As for what was up with Cydebot, I have no idea. I don't think there is any reason to replace {{icon}}, since as far as I know it is not a non-free image, it's something that was created on WP and is quite widely used (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Icon). All I can think is that there was a bug and Cydebot went out covering images that it shouldn't have been. The bot programmer might know more.
- In any case, I think if you use
{{subst:DYK?}}
in the future then we should be safe whether or not Cydebot malfunctions. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)- Thanks for your reply. This is confusing. I always use one of the four icons that appear in the editing window when editing an individual entry. I do not even know where to get the copy right image icon offhand. That is why I think the bot did it. It does not make sense, if you look at the edit history, that I did it. The bot inserted those icons. Still confused. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Then that is confusing. Here is where the {{icon}} templates appear to have been introduced; I'm not sure what Shubinator was "cleaning up" there, or how the original subst'ed images you put got removed.
- And this gets us one step closer to the truth. Apparently User:WOSlinker changed, without consensus, the DYKtick and other icons to use the {{icon}} template. Shubinator has since fixed them (as far as I can tell); there's really no point for the DYK icons to use the icon template, since the whole point of the DYK icons is to be subst'ed (to avoid having a million transcluded templates at T:TDYK—that would make the page take forever to load). In any case, it looks like things should be ok now, and you definitely didn't do anything wrong--the problem was that someone changed the templates without letting anyone know. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And now I've watchlisted all the DYK icons to help make sure they don't get messed around with in the future. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing that up! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. This is confusing. I always use one of the four icons that appear in the editing window when editing an individual entry. I do not even know where to get the copy right image icon offhand. That is why I think the bot did it. It does not make sense, if you look at the edit history, that I did it. The bot inserted those icons. Still confused. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the bottom line seems to be, instead of using
Thanks for your question. Yes, your interpretation is right, I might say in the hook Kisza is a painter. And it is true that he not only runs it but also owns it - my English is troublesome a bit. Can you suggest a new hook? Thanks a lot for help. Today I want to add some photos.--Aloysius (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And the collection is of his work as well as that of others? But the largest single artist collection in Europe in the gallery is his? Some photos would be great! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- There is only his work in the gallery. And I can copy a photo from his book - I even asked him if I can use scans from his book for wikipedia but I am not sure how to prove that he agreed.--Aloysius (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you have a letter from him agreeing, you can send it to OTRS to get an OTRS ticket. I will look more into that, as I am not sure how that is done. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have asked at the Wikipedia:Help desk what you should do to prove you have permission.[4] I will let you know what I find out. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The problem is that the photographer who took the pictures in the book also has a copyright in her/his photos; possibly, so does the publisher of the book! All parties involved would have to grant permission under one of our licenses. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In your comment about the DYK for Violet (computer game), I believe you overlooked that the article moved from user space to article space on the 8th, which I believe per D7 qualifies as new for DYK. Would you be so kind as to review your statement? Thanks for taking the time to review my nomination! — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I will. I could very well have overlooked a move from user space. My apologies. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Snyder, New York
Could you try again looking for the PDF at http://www.amherst.ny.us/pdf/planning/snyder/actionplan.pdf, the main source for DYK nomination Snyder, New York? It downloads for me (size of 4.62 MB), although it's slower than many other PDFs to download. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Great! I was able to look at it with no problems. I suspected that it was a temporary problem. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I have addressed your comments on the GA review for Eli Lilly. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I will look. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to your additional comments. Thanks :) Charles Edward (Talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Loihi
Just beep me if there are any concerns. Yep, it went through a lot of work; me and Viditras hammered at it for a full month :P I'ts nice that someone picked it up; it's been at GAN for over 2 weeks (as has my other GA, Hawaii hotspot). My goal for the article is an FA. ResMar 20:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- FA seems like an appropriate goal. It is a very interesting and thorough article. I have been worrying about some FAC type things as I copy edit it. If there are two of you to jump in to rectify FAC objections, that is good. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad my work is appreciated! ResMar 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I've finished construction work and nommed for GA. I'll continue to polish it, but I think it is turning out really well, better than I expected. The thing is, it is an unusual structure and some may think it overdetailed, but as we are dealing with, in effect, a ten day period, I think a detailed article is needed to assure the reader understands the intricacies of what went on; it is a coherent story and is an important article, everyone from then on saw Nixon through the filter of the speech, for good or bad. I have Nixon's book, Six Crises, in which he discusses the Fund crisis in detail, on order.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would wade in and review it, except without the discipline of FAC you will disregard all my suggestions! (I know this from experience.) I see big things right away that are wrong with the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to revert you on word choice more than anything else, sometimes I include a word for a very specific reason and you aren't aware of this (how could you be) and you replace with a synonym. I don't think we tend to disagree on "big picture" items. Why don't you tell me what the major problems you see are here, and then we can go on from there?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- For one, the use of all caps is strictly forbidden by MoS. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've decapitated that. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- " ... discussions between his campaign staff and his longtime California backers resulted in a privately-run fund ...". Are you saying that Nixon did not know about this, had no input etc.? Weaselly. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good point. I've consulted the Morris book and made it clearer. Of course, Nixon had to know, he cashed the checks from the Fund, didn't he?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- "The furor grew tremendously ..." Not encyclopedia wording. Saying, "The furor grew" would be enough.
- "overwhelming outpouring of public support ..." outpouring is enough - don't need "overwhelming"
—Mattisse (Talk) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll agree with you on the second one. On the first, we need some verbiage that this crisis came out of nowhere and endangered Nixon's place on the ticket within 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree. It is enough for a politician to have a "furor" grow. The word "tremendously" is not professional and is not encyclopedic. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I rephrased to get rid of the furor. Reading Six Crises, the part about the Fund Crisis, as we speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Six Crises isn't going to help your POV. What about "with a huge majority in favor of the senator." This is POV in the lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Probably not, and I'm very cautious about how I use it. OK, how do YOU think I should characterize 75 to 1 in favor except as "huge majority"? Incidently, while the POV is arguable, I do call Nixon "disgraced president" later in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- The great thing about NPOV is that you don't "editorialize" with adjectives. Perhaps reading Wikipedia:WTA will help. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, I'm bored with Checkers speech, moving on to look for next project. I think you are right, Checkers speech will inevitably get lost in POV battles. I think Matthew Boulton would be fun, and I just read an article on him. Have to order a book. New one coming out on him in July.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Humm, where do you find these people? What will the "hook" be with him? (And what book are you getting?) —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I rephrased to get rid of the furor. Reading Six Crises, the part about the Fund Crisis, as we speak.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't agree. It is enough for a politician to have a "furor" grow. The word "tremendously" is not professional and is not encyclopedic. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll agree with you on the second one. On the first, we need some verbiage that this crisis came out of nowhere and endangered Nixon's place on the ticket within 48 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Just read an article on him. The hook? Coins, his connection with James Watt, who knows? He'll beat the hell out of Calif. politicians. And I think he will be found to be interesting. There's a new book out in July, run his name as a search on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Macaw
I wonder if you can classify this ref as a primary source or a secondary source. It has been used on the Saint Croix Macaw article. There is some discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Saint_Croix_Macaw. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Answered on Snowmanradio's talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Merrill Lock No. 6
Thanks for removing the stub tag; I'd added it early in the writing stage, when I had much less information than I finished with, and forgot to remove it after expansion. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. It also needs a project template on the talk page, so the talk page is not a red link. I've been trying to find one! —Mattisse (Talk) 03:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Another tag added. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK medal
![]() |
The DYK Medal | |
For tireless verifying of hooks at Template talk:Did you know, I hereby award you the DYK contributors medal for outstanding contributions to the running of the DYK project. Congratulations! Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC) |
I know Bencherlite gave you a barnstar for this a couple of weeks ago, but I've been so impressed by your work ethic at T:TDYK over the last few weeks that I think you should have one of these. I know how much work there can be in verifiying hooks so I really think you have earned it! Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing – thanks a lot for your continuous work helping with this backlog right now. Getting hooks moved off T:TDYK and into updates can be the easiest task (heck, I'm doing that right now, although it does need to be done). But verifying and commenting is the thankless, tiring job that really keeps DYK going. We really appreciate it. :) Jamie☆S93 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! I feel very rewarded. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I came here to say the same thing – thanks a lot for your continuous work helping with this backlog right now. Getting hooks moved off T:TDYK and into updates can be the easiest task (heck, I'm doing that right now, although it does need to be done). But verifying and commenting is the thankless, tiring job that really keeps DYK going. We really appreciate it. :) Jamie☆S93 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Electrik Red DYK
Hey there. Could you please read my response at the nom. page? Thanks. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 13:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Will do! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hey again. Please check back, because hopefully the problem has been solved. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 15:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help; it's much appreciated (and you certainly deserve that barnstar above!). :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome! And thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
vandalism and welcoming new users
You're an experienced editor. You must know that vandalism ONLY refers to edits that are wilfully destructive. An editor who is making an attempt to improve the encyclopedia, no matter how badly they do it, is not a vandal, and MUST NOT be called a vandal. With that in mind do you want to reconsider your unfriendly welcome to 207.6.206.218? New editors are unlikely to realise that trigger happy editors who don't check the output of their scripts are slapping inappropriate templated warnings everywhere. Maybe it's too late? Maybe that IP editor is gone, and will never make any edits again. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. I'm very willing never to leave another warning. I only do it out of a sense of duty, but I will stop. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK
I just wanted to point out that the purpose of my DYK query was to find out what the community thought plus see what they expected out of the articles - what would the expansion be, what pages would need it, how would it be divided, etc. It is a problem with old articles that combined multiple notable subjects without giving them their own separate pages. I am not concerned with the specific amount, but I do want people to come to a general agreement on whatever so I know how to proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's OK. I'm just an old timer who remembers the days when DYK was more informal and when there were not so many editors seriously racking up points. Nothing depends on what I think. It seems that the general DYK community of tolerant of the increasing DYK complexity and the "advertising" use of DYK by experienced editors, so that is what is important. I am just one editor. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Mattisse, I've been around DYK for a long time. I put it on the talk page because I don't "rack up points" and that I just want things to go through without having the problems that happened back in November when the community decision wasn't clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Another for your collection
![]() |
The Good Article Reviewer's Barnstar | |
In addition to your helpful reviews of "my" articles, you're one of 3 reviewers whose approach encouraged me to submit more articles for GA review and to review articles myself. This award is long overdue, it's taken me a while to find the right Barnstar. --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |
A big thanks! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: '76
Thanks for the reference assistance. I surely do appreciate it. I was kinda goaded into writing the article, which took about 3-4 hours to write-n'-cite. I would have converted them eventually, but I figured that having it come up as a DYK would bring a lot of hands to the article. mooting the necessity. Thanks for the help, though! :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's an interesting little article, and the first one I have seen to use podcasts! Glad to do it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
After a quick skim through, I think the only section that might be over-laudatory is "critical reception", and that depends on what the sources say and whether the article omits reviews that were less positive or contained criticisms among the praise. The material about the concept naturally contains a lot of the creator's views, that's inevitable. The description of the production includes conflicts with the record company and Maxwell's contributions to these. If I were reviewing, I'd look at the cited reviews and Google to see if there are others. If that research finds no less positive notes, then I think the tone is acceptable. --Philcha (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Great! Thanks. I like the editor's writing and have passed his work before. So I am happy to get this go ahead! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Pronouns
May I ask are you a male or female yourself? I'm a she. Your name gives nothing away to me. The "isse" at the end sounds like something at the end of the name of many African American women.--Hfarmer (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
... for your kind words about DYK. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)