→Your opinions are requested: new section |
→Your opinions are requested: response to Chillum |
||
Line 289: | Line 289: | ||
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]]. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
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]]. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color="Green">'''Chillum'''</font>]] 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, —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 12:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:00, 7 April 2009
![]() |
---|
14 August 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 . |
DYK suggestions
Over on T:TDYK, I've added an explanation for Monster Kingdom: Jewel Summoner. Also, I may have to scrap the one for Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (video game), unless you have any alts for it. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 08:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- There must be something in the article you can use as a hook! Is there an interesting or unusual part of the plot, or the protagonist, for example? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- How about "...that the PlayStation Portable video game Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem had a shorter development cycle than the movie it was based on?" The source is the IGN preview page 2 (reference #8). — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is an improvement. Perhaps it will help give ideas. (I have no idea how long video games take to develop versus a film.) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Should be all set now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that is an improvement. Perhaps it will help give ideas. (I have no idea how long video games take to develop versus a film.) —Mattisse (Talk) 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Jane Park DYK
When I saw the alternate hook you presented, I realized there were a couple factors I hadn't accounted for in the statistics, which I further explained back at DYK. As a result, I added a modified version of your alternate hook to reflect these changes, after making the necessary changes to the article. Hope this is all right. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Did I misconstrue something? I will take a look. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Rest assured that I did the miscontruing, not you. The problems with the hook were due to problems in the lead I originally wrote. Thanks for putting up that alternate hook, which inadvertently brought them to my attention. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Responded back on the DYK page. It's complicated, but hopefully you can understand what I'm saying. If not, there's now a table in the article that you can check. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Will look. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you are thinking, another California politician. Don't worry, it is just to avoid having no link in the Chotiner article. I'm giving some thought to expanding an article I worked on a long time ago, Maynooth grant. Lot of potential there, and probably lots of old references.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- The articles of yours that have been most successful are those that involved an added dimension that allowed them to have general appeal, WWII and the holocaust, Robinson Crusoe ... Perhaps you can get Chotiers through FAC on pure grit and persistence, like the endless bishop articles that make it. If you live in Virginia, what is your attraction to California politicians? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Lane came because I was researching cabinet members to see if I could find any Saxbe fixes Tony had missed. The Nixon related articles are because I wrote a DYK following the death of Nixon's 1948 opponent, Stephen Zetterberg, and that led me to Voorhis (which I've put in cold storage at GAN for a while) and I realized that Chotiner was more interesting. I am really hoping that the Nixon connection will get it through. People are fascinated by Nixon, love him or hate him. I'm hoping for a Speer effect, though Nixon is no Hitler.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to read through the article again, but is there enough about Nixon of interest in there? To me, you have to show a dramatic tension between Nixon and Chotiner, as there was between Wolters and Speer, to make it interesting. So much about Nixon is so very well known. If you could show that Chotiner really was Nixon's only "friend" and why. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Chotiner kept his mouth shut for the most part. I've got to get a copy of Nixon's memoirs and see what he says. Damn, I wish there was more analysis of Chotiner. I'm pretty sure that the reason why Nixon never gave him anything important after 1962 was that he was too controversial (Chotiner himself said a campaign manager has to be invisible) but I can't find anything for sure that says that was the reason.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure that he is missing in action because there is no "there" there. In other words, there is no more to say about him. No twisted secrets. Maybe his three wives? That is rather unusual for that era. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Four, actually. There may be more; one newspaper refers to his "sometimes troubled home life". They didn't always print all they knew back in the day. What I really want to know is: Why didn't Nixon involve him in Watergate? It was all hands on deck in the storm, and Chotiner seems to be sleeping below decks (reference is to the book of Jonah, if you are interested).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Why was he not close to Nixon in Washington? Was he one of those people who burn out early? The article on him is anticlimactic because just as the going gets rough, Chotiner is dead and gone. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think he was dead meat as a campaign manager because you can't have a campaign manager who is himself an issue. Well, OK, Lee Atwater. I think Nixon decided that Chotiner was behind the times, he had all these new friends with the crew cuts like Haldeman and Ehrlichman, he just kept Chotiner around because he owed the guy something and wanted his advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- But Nixon's reactions in that transcript ...--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is the thing about Nixon. He was oddly trusting. The cast of characters around him, Dean, Halderman, Erlich, Kissinger even; he was strangely open to them, as a man would be who did not have friends, did not know the difference between friends and associates. He selected those who were around him. Where was Chotiner? The evidence that Wolters and Speer's wives remained close—there is nothing like that to show cement in Nixon's relationships. And now it turns out, he was one of the better presidents in many ways. Better then Carter; in some ways better than LBJ. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) To sum it up, Nixon made a bad mistake and didn't admit it while the admitting might have done him some good. Like Speer, he spent the final 15 years or so of his life working to improve what posterity would say about him. Yes, someone like Chotiner should have been the person Nixon talked to, but I am sure that the new crowd saw him as an old fuddy duddy and a threat as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- The new crowd being Halderman, Erlich and Dean? You make it sound like Nixon and Chotiner were both passive recipients. I don't think of Nixon that way. His personal flaws formed his fate, not Halderman, Erlich, or Dean. Did not Chotiner have any effect on his own life? He was passive in all this? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- No. Chotiner made a choice. His twenty years of investment in Nixon finally paid off, he went to Washington even though it cost him his marriage. I don't think he was ever in the loop though. Nixon had made new friends.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Verifying DYK noms
Hello, I'm asking you because you seem to be active at T:TDYK: who can verify the nominations? In particular, is my hook for Arthur W. Ryder verified? The tick mark there is from another nominator and doesn't have the magic words about "size, date, refs" etc., so I'm wondering. :) Additionally, would it be appropriate for me to return the favour and verify his nomination? Apart from verifying the prose size, date of creation and reliability of the hooks, do you also decide on the "interestingness" of the hook? Thanks for any answers, Shreevatsa (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC) [BTW: if you wish to (re)verify my hook, there are more refs in the J. Robert Oppenheimer and Trinity (nuclear test) articles.]
- Anyone can verify a hook. The rules for verifying an article and hook are the following: DYK Rules. In general, "returning the favor" or quid pro quo arrangements are discouraged because of possible bias, so it is not good to pass someone else's hook because they passed yours. But feel free to evaluate unrelated hooks in which you are uninvolved. The hook for Arthur W. Ryder is verified. The "magic words" are not strictly necessary. However, you can make sure your hook "follows" all the hook rules, as the hook may be rechecked before it goes into the Queue. As far as what makes an "interesting" hook, the rules say the hook must be "interesting or intriguing". Of course, that is subjective. Hooks that make a bland statement, like " ... that Queen Elizabeth is the queen of England"? or " ... that the movie Top Gun came out in 1986?" are considered boring. Hope this helps! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that was indeed helpful. Regards, Shreevatsa (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Johnny Valentine DYK
I was wondering if you could help clarify something. When I cut and paste the text of the article into the character counter linked from WP:DYK (http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml), it gives me 1508 characters as the starting number (the March 14 version). Am I counting this wrong? I copy and paste the prose, minus the infobox, "In wrestling" list, "Championships and accomplishments" list, and table of contents, and then I delete the references ([1], etc.). I just checked again, and it looks like the article went from 1508 to 7385 (admittedly, still 170 characters short). I'm not trying to question you, and I can probably add more content, but I'd like to know for next time. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- DYK uses User:Dr pda/prosesize.js which omits markup, info boxes, blockquotes, lists, references etc. and just counts the prose. The DYK check uses Dr pada. So if you cut and paste the whole article into the Character count you will get a wildly different number. If you do a lot of DYKs with 5-fold expansions, it might be worth it to put Dr pada into your user monobook.js. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I still find it a little strange, as both methods count exactly the same things (I delete all of the things you listed before I get a character count). I think my best bet is to look into what monobook.js means sometime in the future (I've been meaning to for a while). It seems a lot faster than manually deleting markup, etc., and, if it's what is being used by the people who matter, I should probably get with the program. I'll see what I can do about adding more to the article. Thanks again for your time and your help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- All you do is paste "//adds prosesize to toolbar in left menu
- Thanks for the reply. I still find it a little strange, as both methods count exactly the same things (I delete all of the things you listed before I get a character count). I think my best bet is to look into what monobook.js means sometime in the future (I've been meaning to for a while). It seems a lot faster than manually deleting markup, etc., and, if it's what is being used by the people who matter, I should probably get with the program. I'll see what I can do about adding more to the article. Thanks again for your time and your help. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); " into your monobook.js (without the quotes). It would be User:GaryColemanFan/monobook.js. Just paste it in, or create it first, if you do not have one. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your help. I got the prosesize tool added, which will make future DYK suggestions easier. I also figured out why there was such a difference in our initial figures—the prosesize tool includes footnotes and section headers, both of which I wasn't counting. Anyhow, I added more information to the article so that it should meet the expansion criterion. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
RFC regarding WP:TERRORIST
Hi: You're probably watching the WT:WTA talk page, but if not, I wanted to let you know I've set up an RFC to get some outside discussion there, and to encourage slightly more formal statements than our more freewheeling discussion thus far. RayTalk 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will consider weighing in, although I don't know how much I can contribute as the discussion seem to have gotten all out ow wack. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK suggestion of Railways on the Isle of Wight
I'd quite like to see this article pass the DYK criteria before its time runs out. I have made changes to the article, at least partly based on your suggestions, plus I've commented on the original ALT hook and supplied another which I feel better reflects the article content. There doesn't seem to be any further progress. Could you take another look and comment further please? Thanks, --Peeky44 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Autobiographies
I've reverted a number of changes in categories that you've made. In these cases you've put biographies into the category of autobiographies. Autobiographies indicate that the biography was written by the subject of the biography his or herself. When written by others, they are simply biographies.--Rtrace (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I checked them all to make sure they were all memoirs or autobiographies, or collections of same and did not put biographies into the category of autobiographies on purpose. But whatever you say, as I don't care if you have another criteria and are using it.
- I am perfectly willing to cease worrying about the category, as over the last two years I have spent a lot of time on the category Biographies and its subcategories. But you are free to take over. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had assumed you were working in good faith (and I marked the reverts so). I think where the confusion results because the books in question are described as memoirs. For example, Lovecraft Remembered is a collection of memoirs about H. P. Lovecraft by people who knew him. I know that the memoir article states that a memoir is a sub-category of autobiography, but I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. Either the memoir article is incorrect, or perhaps it is inaccurate to describe these books as memoirs. However, Wikitionary describes memoir as "Any form of narrative describing the personal experiences of a writer" (2nd definition) In the example, categorizing Lovecraft Remembered as an autobiography would make one think that the book was written by Lovecraft (if one goes by the definition in autobiography). Thus my reverts. Thanks.--Rtrace (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- For Memoir vs. Autobiography, I was going by the category definition: As a literary genre, a memoir (from the French: mémoire from the Latin memoria, meaning "memory"), or a reminiscence, forms a subclass of autobiography – although the terms 'memoir' and 'autobiography' are today almost interchangeable. (And it seems they are used interchangably so I wasn't worrying about it. However, you are free to do so.) If you want to be sure others follow your rules, you should clearly outline the inclusion/exclusion criteria on each category. Over the last several years, I have spent time sorting there, and today invented the Autobiographies by nationality category. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had assumed you were working in good faith (and I marked the reverts so). I think where the confusion results because the books in question are described as memoirs. For example, Lovecraft Remembered is a collection of memoirs about H. P. Lovecraft by people who knew him. I know that the memoir article states that a memoir is a sub-category of autobiography, but I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. Either the memoir article is incorrect, or perhaps it is inaccurate to describe these books as memoirs. However, Wikitionary describes memoir as "Any form of narrative describing the personal experiences of a writer" (2nd definition) In the example, categorizing Lovecraft Remembered as an autobiography would make one think that the book was written by Lovecraft (if one goes by the definition in autobiography). Thus my reverts. Thanks.--Rtrace (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
Edit conflict
Hi Mattisse,
You may have noticed we recently had an edit conflict (Cotoneaster salicifolius). Maybe we were trying to do the same thing. I have been trying for several hours to gradually cleanup all those refs so they make sense. Right now they are 90% cleaned up. Unfortunately, my sister is about to take me to my father's for his birthday and I must pause. I will come back this evening to finish it (or at least fine tune whatever you do, if needed. I will look at it then). The reason it takes me so long is I have no ability with WebTV to cut and paste, and must retype everything each time I change it.
Talk (on our talk pages) with you later.
Best wishes, Hamamelis (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry about the edit conflict. I wasn't aware it was happening! I think the references are good enough but you are certainly welcome to improve them. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's OK, no offense at all. You improved the article. I did some more reference cleanup today (unrelated to your own) and think all the bugs are worked out. At this moment, with the information currently there, it looks much nicer and easier to read. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
RE:Cross Seamount
DYK bit here, here. You're right, I should have been more specific in that the NOAA administrated the tagging effort. ResMar 14:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Your question
Hello Mattisse,
I'm not sure I feel comfortable answering your question because of this RfC and the ongoing matters discussed there. Personally, I don't have a position on that RfC and I don't take a "side", so to speak; but I don't feel proper in answering a question, in the context of the RfB, relating to issues that I really don't know very much about. I hope you understand.
Best wishes, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding to my query. I am not asking about a specific situation, since I have asked that question of candidates long before that RFC was opened. However, I understand that the topic in general is a sensitive, and one that only the newer folk are willing to address. C'est la vie! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all; I thank you for appreciating my position with regard to your question. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you again for your message and willingness to respond. I do not think I can vote for you however, as the issue I raised has caused much bad blood on Wikipedia and has cast such a pall that still lies over all. I think that until the entrenched elements, including Arbcom, firmly deals with this behavior on the part of entitled editors, Wikipedia will remain a frequently ugly experience. There are a group of editors, a less entrenched group, that seem to have a firmer stance on civility and it is there where I believe hope lies. I want to believe that you are a member of this latter, wonderful group, as I have only seen you respond well to others and never witnessed untoward behavior on your part. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all; I thank you for appreciating my position with regard to your question. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Places of worship in Bangalore
Please let me know if there are still any problems to be resolved in the DYK.I have clarified on the issues of religious places given in Hindua as the only source I could get on the web.Thanks--Nvvchar (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problems, as given the situation, what you have is reasonable and rewording is not necessary. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any information as to which language this article was translated from? Also, please note, the {{translated}} tag should go on the talk page of articles, and needs information about the source for GFDL purposes. Thanks. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 09:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ignore that - I think you meant the {{translate}} tag, not {{translated}} — Tivedshambo (t/c) 09:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I just saw your Alternate hook for Anaconda Copper Mine (Nevada). Weed Heights became a ghost town at the time I suppose (not sure, I wasn't here then), but now that it is owned by the county commissioner, is all rental property (so it's not a ghost town any more, would that make it a ghost town that has been resurrected?). I don't know if the hook should be changed or not (since it is correct, maybe incomplete, I couldn't find a source about the rental property though), but I thought you might want to know. Thanks!--kelapstick (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh no! I don't even see the ghost town bit in the article. I don't normally ever make things up for a hook. But I looked through all the sources and I don't see ghost town anywhere. I will change it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- In hindsight I did mention it was a rental community (should have checked the article I wrote before I talked about it...d'oh!), at least we caught it before it made the main page! I suppose anyone living in Weed Heights might take exception to Wikipedia calling their community a ghost town! Thanks, and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Can you think of a substitute hook, or should I not suggest a replacement? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The only one that I could think of was the original one I suggested... that the community of Weed Heights, Nevada was built to support the open pit mining operation at the Anaconda Copper Mine?
- Not particularly interesting I suppose...if you can think of a better one, by all means.--kelapstick (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I will suggest that plus, how about:
- ... that the EPA has spent $6 million investigating the wastes at the former Anaconda Copper Mine site and Weed Heights, Nevada, built to support the mines? —Mattisse (Talk)
- ... that the EPA has spent $6 million investigating the waste at both the former Anaconda Copper Mine site in Nevada and Weed Heights, the community built to support the mine?
- I modified it a bit, the "Weed Heights" part was just kind of hanging there. Also make sure there is a (Nevada) after "Anaconda Copper Mine" it will link to a mine in Montana rather if there isn't (there is a proposal for standardizing the title of two mines with the same name at WP:MINING). I also depluralized the word "waste", it just sounded odd (even though that is how it was reported).--kelapstick (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can see how I reported it at DYK: Queue 5 mistake. See what you think, and you can add your comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Both hooks look good to me, thanks for your help!--kelapstick (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Good! I feel really bad for screwing it up. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Both hooks look good to me, thanks for your help!--kelapstick (talk) 22:36, 30 March 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].
Barnstar (2)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
For tirelessly reviewing nominations at "Did You Know" and making an invaluable contribution to the workings of the Main Page. BencherliteTalk 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC) |
Every time I look, you've reviewed another hook. Fantastic work. And I know you were given a barnstar a few days ago for the same thing, but you deserve it. Warmest wishes, BencherliteTalk 23:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattisse is a redlink? --BencherliteTalk 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes. I am periodically misunderstood pretty severely. I think it is due to my excessively high energy level at times. Besides, I would not be good at it. I am not a technical person. Thanks for thinking of me though. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
DYK appreciation
Please accept my thanks for all of the hard work you've put in on reviewing and approving DYKs. While I and every other editor knows what they were trying to do when creating an article, we can make it hard on reviewers like you to hunt through an article to confirm what is being cited. Please accept my apologies for any crankiness that may be reflected in any recent comments. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I used to submit bunches of DYKs back in the days when no one went through them, so I know what it feels like to have a DYK ignored. I understand your side of it. And I appreciate how you jump on the news (including the obits!) like the Polycap article (which I heard on the news this morning) and you do write good articles quickly. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)