User talk:Mattisse

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

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 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

GAR of Exploration of Jupiter

Exploration of Jupiter has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Francis Amasa Walker

I'm in the midst of attempting to address the points you raised in the GA review, but I'm really struggling with how to summarize for the lead. I wanted to inquire if you wanted to attempt a summary or perhaps point me to another GA or FA to use as a template to summarize a man with such multi-faceted and diverse interests. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead is just supposed to summarize the main points of the article. Just summarize each major section, mentioning only the salient points and not the details. There are six major sections in your article, but the lead preferable will have only four paragraghs. Perhaps the first paragraph gives an overall view of who he was. Maybe the second can summarize his military career. The third can summarize his government jobs, the Census and the Indian Bureau and his contributions there. The fourth can do the same for his MIT presidency. And perhaps a short fifth paragraph summarizing his legacy.

This is just a general suggestion. You may want to do it differently. The point is to summarize in a few paragraphs the entire article, generally in the order in which the material is presented in the article. The reader then goes into the article get the details. Just mention the highlights in a summary fashion without much detail.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask me more questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the lead. I fear it may be too long, but it can always be summarized. Hopefully this is sufficient for GA and beyond! :) Madcoverboy (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks for your feedback and attention! Madcoverboy (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

United States Senate election in California, 1950

Could I get you to hold your nose and at least take a look at this? Tony1 is saying it needs a copyediting, and I think it's garbage and he is showing why he's on editing restriction. The article's gone through GA and PR, still to keep the peace ... I got rid of "Republican officials", by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I tried but couldn't get much past the introduction. My brain just isn't up to it. It takes someone who is interested in the subject matter. Sorry. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with Tony, as I've said at the article's FAC. What "editing restrictions" is he on anyway? That's news to me. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't seen this? OK, I'm taking seriously the copyedit thing. However, Mattisse is my usual go to, er, gal (forgive me) on this. Any suggestions for a candidate to copyedit? Or would you be willing to take a shot at it, Malleus? Don't forget, I supported your RFA! :)--Wehwalt (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course I'm aware of the mass date delinking scandal, I just thought that your comment was in some way relevant to FAC participation, which I now see that it isn't. My RfA (both of them) is a bad memory that I'd prefer to forget, so I have no more loyalty to my supporters than I bear grudges against the bastards that opposed me. But if you're prepared to make the article less parochial by avoiding silly words like "grubernatorial" then I'm prepared to help. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant your "joke" RFA. I would not presume to condition RfA votes in such a manner, Malleus. Yes, I'd be grateful for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about that. Looking through some of those old archives gives me a clear sense of the hatred and blood-lust that some editors have for me. Hopefully though they'll all spontaneously ignite one day soon. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that and Majorly's "CreditCrunch" RfA's leave me in stitches, and if they didn't have an echo of "real life" they wouldn't be funny. I greatly appreciate your giving me a hand. This is the first individual election article to make it this far, and I'm determined to see it through. I didn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, that I was seeking a favor in exchange for my !vote. Come to think of it, I'm not sure I voted in either of your real RfA's.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks very good. I'll probably do a touchup for technical stuff, but I think I'll notify the opposers to reconsider once that's done. Let me know when you are done working it over. Thanks! Did you get my email?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Got the email and don't know what to make of it. One thing is clear from your article: Nixon was really into to "tactics". In fact, Douglas sounds a little "flaky". I'm pretty much done. Hope the quotes are reduced enough to satisfy. I tried to leave in the ones that gave a flavor of the rhetoric. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How could they not know those things about Chotiner? After ten years' association with the man. As for Douglas, probably. Or more of a feeling that she was invincible, her NY Times obit said that the 1950 loss was the first major setback in her entire life. Before that, as the final quote makes clear, things just came easy to her. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They were very concrete in their thinking. The fact they would need to write those things down indicates that, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

True. I've gone through it and made a few minor changes. Sorry, I just like "iconic" vehicle! They have it displayed (surely a replica) at the Nixon Museum. Incidentally, this article has no heroes. Everyone winds up looking bad. Except maybe the minor candidates ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if "iconic" passes the POV test, it's OK with me. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It's to contrast to Douglas's "Helencopter". Both had vehicles that got a lot of comment in the spring of 1950.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

But "iconic" is something like the Statue of Liberty. I don't think the "Helencopter" is iconic. I have never heard of it before. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Good point. Notable? Noteworthy? What's a good word for this?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I just put "campaign vehicle" almost anything is a bit peacocky.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Smart's asylum confinement‎

Since my FAC received few reviews, I wanted to seek three people to look over the article and give a general input. I'm not looking for grammar. I want to see how the page reads as a whole and the rest. In general, I want to get a sense of the positives and the negatives. If you want to make any changes, feel free. I am asking you because you have a good sense when it comes to a wide range of page types, so you would be able to see how this page (which is a rather unique page) would fit in. If you do not want to, you do not have to. If you only want to say a little, you can, or if you want to say a lot, you can. This is an informal request and you can make any comments on the talk page if you would like. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Shanhua Temple

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Talk:Shanhua Temple.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chotiner

Take a look at |this picture and compare to the picture in the Murray Chotiner article. Is that Chotiner on the left, looking down? I'm very bad at facial recognition and I'm just not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It does look like him to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the hair is slightly different and he put on a bit of weight before 1956, but I think so too. Obviously he didn't notice the camera or he would have turned invisible! So now we have a free picture of Chotiner for his article and we can lose the Life magazine one.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

For the info box? He is rather in the background, isn't he? Also, in the Murray Chotiner article the picture of Nixon is so dark that I can barely make out that it is a head shot, nevermind of whom. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess the campaign shot is not that good for Chotiner. I will include it in the article though. I have a better one of Nixon, but need to upload it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fringe candidates

Both of them were utter nut jobs, I'm discovering. Meyer was arrested days after the general election on bigamy charges, and turned out to have six wives (well, there may have been one valid divorce). Levitt was a former law professor, the plaintiff in Ex parte Levitt which sought to have Hugo Black disqualified from being on the Supreme Court, and later got in a lawsuit against Gerald Smith, the anti Semitic fellow nut job. Amazing they got any votes. Too bad it would be a distraction to put it in the article. Well, maybe a phrase about Levitt, "a former law professor and plaintiff in Ex parte Levitt, running on an anti-Catholic platform", eh?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you could add that as the other fringe candidate's occupation (runs dating service) is given. Re "War in Korea; conflict in California", is a semi-colon good in a heading? Looks funny. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See no harm in changing it to a comma, I'll do that. Apparently Levitt was once a judge in the Virgin Islands and ruled that women had to be allowed to vote. I've started a stub article on him and will expand it tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting if no doubt sanitized.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you find these things? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity. I got interested in the fringe candidates. It was hard to find much on Meyer, but Levitt was easy on Google. I've got to go to work but I'll write Levitt's article later!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK help requested - Phylactolaemata

Hi, Mattisse, if you are no longer directly involved in DYK (I don't want to involve you in any conflict of interests), could you please have a look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Phylactolaemata and suggest any improvements you can think of. --Philcha (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Philcha, I added some alt hooks. See what you can do with them. You might what to modify them. Regards. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mattisse. I just found your "buffet" and have suggested a [[Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_August_3 | smorgasbord version}}. What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it should either be "produced" and "survived" or "produces" and "survives". —Mattisse (Talk) 13:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, "produced 800,000" because that's 1 observation but "statoblasts ... survive ..." because the rest is a persistent property of statoblasts. Of course that looks OK to me because I knew what I was thinking when I wrote it :-)

What do you think? --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. I noted it on the DYK page. If someone thinks it is important enough they will probably fix it, or at least mention it. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Crucibulum

Hi Matisse, you were right about the merge, and I combined the two articles. I just needed to set it aside for a while so I could look at it with fresh eyes. I still need to copyedit to make sure there's no repeated info, but the merge gained about 10k of prose for the genus article, and after a good going-over I think I might try submitting for FAC in the near future. Thanks for your help in improving the quality of fungus articles on Wikipedia! Sasata (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks. :) I'll finish the reference section, and if I can find a ref for the sentence I made invisible I'll add it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing the episodelink and serieslink parameters

Please stop from doing this without explaining exactly why the parameters automatically make a reference a self-reference. And don't do it on random articles; that's disruption to make a point. Do it on Template talk:Cite episode. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I removed them is because they lead to nonexistent wikipedia pages. The pages do not exist. There should not be false links in the references. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Because someone has been messing with the template code, not because they were deliberately put there. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that an important distinction? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The links to the real wikipedia articles still work. Just the ones that do not exist - the episodelink - are removed. Besides, a reference to another wikipedia article is not a real reference. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The episodelink parameter does not even imply a reference to Wikipedia. It's never even appeared in the source-checking for multiple FACs. It's like saying that linking to a book article in {{cite book}} makes that a Wikipedia reference too (it doesn't). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But the links to the episodes are still there. The only difference is that they no longer look like an external link. Looking like an external link to go to another wikipedia article is misleading. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be settled now, just need to wait for the template changes to propogate. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Putin on left

Thanks for your message. It's basically a matter of learning where things are on the site, and finding ways to get to them quickly. My screen reader JAWS has many quick navigation keys to move between headings, tables, lists and the like which I use to navigate through Wikipedia. Seemingly minor changes can be quite disruptive for me; for example it took me a while to get used to the admin tools because the block and delete links seemed to pop up everywhere, and JAWS puts each link on its own line. I like trying to think out of the box both in real life and Wikipedia, and that often pays off because I notice things that other people don't notice. I dunno ... it's just a combination of obsession with Wikipedia, thinking outside the box, and familiarity with the layout of the site. Graham87 01:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind my asking this Graham, but have you always been blind? I'm still thinking about the distinction between the requirements of those who were born blind and those who lost their sight later in life. Regardless, your input to the alt text debate is invaluable, and I really do wish you'd take more of a lead in it, because frankly it seems to me that most of the rest of us are just thrashing around not really knowing what helps and what doesn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> Your abilities expand my view of the capabilities of the human brain. Vision is so dominant that those of us depending on it become lazy I think. We don't bother to think, as you do, and reason. The Putin issue is an example. I think being blind results in you knowing more. I know that at times when my electricity is out, I become aware of how helpless I am, how I should pay way more attention to cues in my environment that are not exclusively visual. I would also like to know the answer to the question Malleus asked, although I suspect you have never been sighted, but maybe I am wrong. There are a thousand questions I would like to ask you. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I lost my sight due to retinopathy of prematurity, so I was born with normal sight, but lost my vision *very* early in life. So I was effectively born blind. I'll do what I can for the alt text debate ... some of the questions are hard for me to answer. Graham87 01:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember colours? Also, I assume from your previous comments, you remember basic shapes like "round"? Or did you have to figure out "round" through tactile methods? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's great ... well not that you had retinopathy of course, but that you'll maybe help to centre the alt text debate. I asked this question elsewhere, but as I have your attention here I'll ask it again. If an image is a picture of elephant, do you have a memory of what an elephant looks like? What does a description like "blonde" mean to you? How would you describe an elephant to someone who had never seen one and couldn't see one? So many questions. --Malleus Fatuorum

I don't remember colours, but I remember basic shapes from feeling tactile diagrams of them. As for describing an elephant, I could point you to Blind men and an elephant. :-) Seriously, I'd have trouble describing one; I mean I know they have a trunk and four legs and they're fairly big animals. I associate colours with concepts, like I know that brown grass will be dead, as discussed in some section of the FAC talk page that I have trouble finding for some reason. I can't really imagine blond hair but it can indicate the race of a person and is IMO suitable in an alt text. Graham87 01:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Most interesting ... for me, the alt thing has been an unforeseen annoyance in my latest FAC. Good to know it is worthwhile.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Blond hair in a way is associated with race, as blond hair (hair that is white, or has little colour) is not likely to be natural in a black person. Where did you get your concepts of race? And what are they, in the absence of colour? —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That's an interesting observation about "blonde hair", because it's most usually nothing to do with race at all, just a fashion statement. Many women lighten their hair colour to become blonde, and even some men. Who was it said that alt text was easy to write? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be true now, but in the country in which I reside there are many "natural blondes" that are obvious and distinguishable from those using it as a "fashion statement". —Mattisse (Talk) 02:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But in the country I live in there are rather few natural blondes, but an awful lot of blonde women. The only real way to tell is to check whether the carpets match the curtains. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I hadn't thought of people dyeing their hair blond. I used to have the blond article on my watchlist, just to check for vandalism, so I should have remembered that. I still have the sky article on my watchlist after finding unreverted vandalism in there, and I enjoy reverting statements like "On a clear day, the sky is green" ... I suppose the vandals have no idea who they're up against. :-) I got my concepts of race mostly from the media, and talking to other people. For example when I wanted to know what Miriam Makeba looked like, shortly after I was introduced to her music, I had to ask whether her looks were typical for her ethnic group because I didn't know. Malleus, what did you mean by checking whether the carpets match the curtains? Or was that just a metaphor for checking her body out. :-) Graham87 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a metaphor for—and I hope Mattisse won't be shocked by this—checking that the colour of pubic hair matches the colour of hair on the head. Well, you did ask. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the type of information only Graham87 thinks to ask. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know what "checking the curtains match the carpets" meant? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that kind of humour may be peculiarly Brit - an odd combination of earthiness and prudery. I'd never seen the phrase before, but understood without thinking. --Philcha (talk)

Same here. Certainly typically Malleus if that is typically Brit. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there are lots more like me over here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I gather there is not much of a "mix" of people in Brit land. Natural blondes are detectable in many more (and less invasive) ways that seeing whether the curtain matches the carpet. Is it a lack of experience with, for example Nordic types in your neck of the woods? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You could hardly be more wrong. We're probably one of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world. My wife has typical Scandinavian/Germanic looks (tall and blonde) while I'm more a reflection of my Norman ancestry (darker and a little brutal). There are shopping areas only a mile or so from our house where you will hardly even see another white person; you might easily believe that your were in Lahore. Outside of the big towns and cities it's a little more homogenous, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hogwash. You don't even know much about true blondes. I have not a drop of English/Irish/Scots/German blood in my body. English is not the dominant language many areas of my town or where I shop. Show me a reference that Great Britain is "one of the most racially and ethnically diverse countries in the world"! Skeptically, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Have it your own way. You obviously know more about me and where I live than I do. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Blond

I dunno if you want me to reply here or at my talk page, but here goes ...

I don't really understand colours as being light or dark, or how they are made, or anything like that. I know that white and black are opposites, as you said on my talk page, and I just associate the intermediate colours with concepts (e.g. healthy grass is green, a clear sky is blue).

I had a brief opportunity to touch a live elephant at Perth Zoo when I was about eight or so. I don't remember much about what it felt like, and wouldn't be able to describe its trunk from memory. I don't often go to zoos or museums because they rarely allow anyone to touch the animals/objects.

I wouldn't say that my experience has been enlarged by blindness, just that it's different. I'm not just blind; I have other conditions that make life even more interesting. Because I was born premature, I have trouble with coordination, for even simple things like tying shoelaces; I use velcro instead. I have difficulty playing any of the sports designed for blind people, even though I created the section about them in the blindness article. I have a one-track mind, so I become obsessed with things like Wikipedia to the exclusion of almost everything else. Graham87 14:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that colors are used to mean concepts and symbols most of the time, rather than having any meaning in and of themselves. Are there not petting zoos in Perth where you can be near and touch animals? What I remember about elephants in the intensity of their presence, the smells and sounds, as well as appearance. On another subject, I just read that the way Wikipedians write in talk threads make difficulties for screen readers, using parentheses and dashes and other characters that interrupt. What are the things that the rest of us do without thinking that bother you the most? Also, I have wondered, if text is in all caps, does your voice synthesizer shout at you? I have a one-track mind also, but sometimes it turns into a too many track mind and I can't keep track of anything. Right now my home is covered with green that I must have chopped away or the green will take over along with the critters that come with it. I was warned yesterday about this danger. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any actual petting zoos in Perth, but sometimes Perth Zoo has open days where handlers show people reptiles or other animals and allow the visitors to pet them.

Parentheses and dashes don't bother me, and JAWS doesn't make any distinction between lower-case and all-caps text except when it's reading by character (like A, L, L, C, A, P, S). The things that bother me the most are when people change the position of the table of contents using templates like {{TOCright}}, and when they put line breaks between items in bulleted lists. If you have a list of 7 items with line breaks between each item, it messes up the HTML and JAWS will read it like this: "list of 1 items, list end, list of 1 items, list end, list of 1 items ..." - you get the idea. Without the line breaks, it will be read as "list of 7 items: blah, blah, blah ... list end". Graham87 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll just clarify that parentheses and dashes don't bother me because I have JAWS set to speak less punctuation than it would by default. I made that decision long before I started editing Wikipedia, because I hated the way JAWS said "colon" for the ":" after every single prompt in Windows. The parentheses and dashes would probably bother people using the default punctuation settings, however. Graham87 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your experience regarding line breaks in bullets and nonstandard TOC should be in WP:ACCESS. I will certainly be conscious of it from now on. Also, you or someone said that when people intersperse comments in threads, where comments by the different people can only be detected visually, it is difficult to impossible for screen readers to make sense of this. That is interesting to know that JAWS is flexible and that you can set preferences. Does it interpret all the internet abreviations and smiley face type things people use, or do you just know what they mean already through your own experience? You should be interviewed by the Signpost. Your insights are valuable. Do you know other blind Wikipedians? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've already put the list thing in WP:ACCESS, and the TOCright problem is mentioned there as well as a few other places like Help:Section. It's difficult for me to make sense of long threaded discussions where people intersperse comments, but I usually manage by checking out the sigs and timestamps. JAWS has an Internet abbreviations and emoticons dictionary, but it's not enabled when doing web browsing because interferes with other words and symbols. I know what most of them mean by now, and if not, I just look them up on Wikipedia or Google. The only other blind admin I know is Academic Challenger; there are other blind editors who are less active such as Weichbrodt and Fastfinge. I'd never thought of being interviewed by the Signpost, even though I've read and copyedited the newsletter for over four years now. I probably have some interesting stories to tell ... I've done quite a few things here in the last four years! Graham87 16:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you would make a wonderful interviewee. Where would I go to suggest you as a subject? I don't know who runs Signpost. But especially as alt test has suddenly become a subject of interest, your perspectives are especially relevant. Diversity in views and experiences is the saving grace of Wikipedia. I have been reading about JAWS and see that there is a steep learning curve, especially for a technologically challenged person like me. Do you have the professional version? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ask Ragesoss, who is the current Signpost editor. He'd probably let you do the interview if you'd like. I have a professional version of JAWS; you can download the demo here. Graham87 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Signpost

Mattisse, I'd be happy to see an interview with Graham in the Signpost. Would you like to do the interview, as Graham suggests?--ragesoss (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to try, especially if you can give me some guidance as I have never done an interview for a publication in my life. Perhaps you could give me some links to past Signpost interview so I could get an idea of what is wanted. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The Signpost style is pretty flexible for interviews, so in general I would say just use your best judgment. One approach I like is to summarize a relevant issue (e.g., the alt text debate or WP:ACCESS) as neutrally and concisely as you can (basically in order to give the readers context), and then ask an open-ended question related to that issue that lets the interviewee share his perspective on it. What I would find interesting would be finding out what it's like for a person who is blind to be an active editor... what sorts of methods and tools does he use to access the site and keep up with things, what sorts of problems does he encounter, etc. You might also ask some more general questions, so that readers get a feel for Graham as an editor... what areas does he work in, what's he proud of, etc.; that kind of thing is often a good way to start out. And then after the interview you can compose a sentence or two for the introduction to explain to readers why you are interviewing him and give them an idea of whether they might (or might not) want to read the whole interview. You can browse some Signpost interviews with the WikiProject reports; here's the latest one: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-07-27/WikiProject report. For another type of interview, you can check out the questions I put to the Wikimedia board candidates, for example, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009 Board elections/Adam Koenigsberg.--ragesoss (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Central Troy Historic District GA candidacy

About ten days ago I made some changes in response to your comments. Can you please look at them and make your GA decision? Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry! —mattisse (Talk) 20:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciated that you appreciated the work Wade and I have put into it. And yes, you will probably be seeing it at FAC sometime in the medium term. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Senate again

In the background section, I think you edited to "most major California officeholders were Republican". Wouldn't that be better as "Republicans"?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No. You wouldn't say "all California officeholders are Americans", would you? Or should I think of a better example. "All Americans are Americans?" I think you are obsessing too much over the article, and when you do that, then your writing "idiosyncrasies" tend to creep in. —mattisse (Talk) 01:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you improve the final paragraph of the lede? I'm very satisfied with the ending, but the first sentence needs work. Feel free to do what you like with it. I think the lede needs to end with the nicknames, because the "Tricky Dick" is a way to get the reader to go on to the rest of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Promoted! Nearly as ugly as the campaign itself, but it made it. I don't have anything nearly ready for FAC, so that gives things time to calm down and so forth. Couldn't have done it without your help and calming influence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank god! congratulations. —mattisse (Talk) 14:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And to you, feel free to add it to your stats. Not looking for TFA for this one anytime soon, 60th anniversary is next November, that would be a good time.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Signpost interview

I don't think I'm going to be around much longer mattisse, but my email address will still work if you think I can help with the interview. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideas for interview

I suppose that my usability issues would be the most important thing for the interview, but only a fraction of my work is accessibility-related. I' do a lot of history merging and work to preserve old pages like those at the historical archive. I also upload music to Wikipedia and add sound samples to articles; see my user page at Commons. I've done some fairly crazy things, as you can see on my user page and my talk page archives, but most of my work has just been standard WikiGnoming. Graham87 04:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Graham, I'm sure that most of work has been standard WikiGnoming. But one of the distinctive features of your work is your contributions to discussions about WP:ACCESS and related topics. While you naturally don't want to be known as "that blind editor", your accessibility work is what gets your name recognised - heck, I've known it for about a year without trying at all. I also know from your recent contributions to the alt text discussions that you can paint a vivid picture of what using WP is like for a blind editor, and that will grab readers' attention much more strongly than the typical "village magazine" article, especially if introduced by a good tag line in the issue's contents page. --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, being blind has influenced my editing in many ways, not just my input into accessibility discussions. I don't take photos for Wikipedia; I'm not like the blind guy in this film. I like uploading audio files of music because that's the only way I can access it easily; musical scores are inaccessible to me, and Braille music is difficult to obtain. I uploaded all the images in the article white cane, which my former mobility instructor took for me. There were no images of canes in the article, and I found a request for a photo on the talk page. I thought that I was in a good position to fulfill the request.

My blindness also influences the types of edits I make: removing spacing between list items, trying to rearrange the TOC so it's in the standard position, and even spelling fixes, because some spelling mistakes stick out like a sore thumb to me. So there is probably a lot to talk about related to my experience of blindness alone. Even though, as you said, I don't want to be known as "just that blind editor", it's an important part of my editing experience. Graham87 09:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So all you need is a good tag line for the issue's contents page. Mattisse will think of something eye-catchng, she's good at DYK hooks. --Philcha (talk) 10:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dog Day Afternoon

Just came across this article, which it looks like you also went through a couple days ago. I've fixed as many links as I can, and removed or replaced what couldn't be fixed or wasn't necessary; all that's left now is the IMDB stuff which is probably hopeless, and I also added a {{fact}} tag to at least one sentence. Of course, there are lots of other minor problems that need to be cleaned up, such as ref formatting.

On a side note...do you have any thoughts on redirecting Elizabeth Eden to this article (to the Historical subsection) or to John Wojtowicz? It seems that she is not notable for anything other than connection with this event. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I am not in favor of redirecting articles out of existence if they can establish their notability independently, which Elizabeth Eden does. I like short to-the-point articles and don't want to wade through Dog Day Afternoon to read about her. Also, adding this detail to the movie article would not benefit that article. She apparently has relevance to the LGBT community. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Palladian architecture

Bored again Mattise, trolling again, or just taking an interest in the finer things of life [1]? So sorry, to dissapoint you, but neither of those paragraphs are by me. However, they were by someone who knew what they were talking about. How destructive your trolling is becoming - I thought you were never going to darken those FARC areas again with your presence - obviously just another of your "statements!" Giano (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Giano, it's always difficult to know how to handle interestig but sub-par additions to FAs or GAs. Way back at the start fo my editing experience, I corrected 3 scientific errors and a WP:UDUE issue in an old FA (i.e. not up to the standard of the time, let alone now), in the course of which I significantly increased the proportion of the article that was supported by citations. Then someone reverted it because they didn't like my style!

The paras Mattisse removed were unsourced, and their prose was convoluted, so they were nowhere near FA standard. My immediate reaction was that they should be removed for now but then improved and added back.

Mattisse, I suggest you paste the diffs to the Talk page and ask for interested editors to source and reinstate as much as they can, and clean up the prose. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove any paragraphs. Giano did.[2] —mattisse (Talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - Giano removed them after you tagged them. Does that mean he both agreed with the tagging and considered it trolling???

It might still be best for you to post the diffs of the tagging and removal to the Talk page, in case Giano does not do so. --Philcha (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I would be starting trouble if I did that. Could you do it with my permission? —mattisse (Talk) 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think imposing "no go" areas is a good way to implement "the plan". I suggest you do the posting, noting that another editor removed the contnet, but using the most neutral language possible. However if after a bit more thought you still think a neutral statement plus request for help in improving that content would be asking for trouble, leave me a message and I'll do it tomorrow. --Philcha (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Philcha (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattise, is just up to one of her games, before nominating for FARC or whatever, some may call it trolling others stalking - who knows and who cares - life is too short to be bothered by Mattisse or even Wikipedia- so go nominate Mattisse, or get one of your friends too - I am away at the moment - so you should have a good run at it. Giano (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Giano, on reading your comments here and at Talk:Palladian architecture, I wish you an enjoyable holiday/wikibreak and hope you will return suitably refreshed and enthusiastic to contribute to the project. Geometry guy 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Age of Reason

I'm sorry to read your decision, but I do understand. I shall plug away for the time being. It's important to remember that there are more important things in life than wikipedia articles, and we only do this for fun. Of course we all encounter other editors from time to time who we want to murder, but sometimes I find I learn a lot in the process of arguing with them. Regards SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, that is true. But entrenched academicians are the worst jargon-mongers. Hopeless article, I my opinion. But I will support you in any attenpt to raise its standards. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Gyeongju

Hello, Mattisse. I saw you checking on sources on the article of Gyeongju for FARC. If possible, would you hold you review for a while? I've been working on the article, and replaced 12 dead links with others and added new 90 inline sources. I know the article that passed FA in 2004 is not like one of currently promoted FA articles, but I've tried to comply to the demands from reviewers. Still, the article has 6 dead links in total, and 10 something inline sources should be added. I could add them in a couple of days. However, I've known that you reviews for FA articles have significantly weighted to the community, so honestly, I'm afraid what you would evaluate it. So I'm seeking a favor. Thanks.Caspian blue 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed all the progress you make and was not intending to weigh in at this point. You certainly deserve more time. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!--Caspian blue 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Okeanos Explorer

Hi. I've been on the verge of verifying your hook for Okeanos Explorer twice and stopped myself because it should really be merged with USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). The resulting article would qualify for DYK as a 5x expansion. If you agree and feel like doing the merge, drop me a note and I'll verify the hook for you. Cheers. Haus^Talk 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is merged, the name needs to be retained, as all the new information forthcoming will be titled Okeanos Explorer as are all the sources. Current and future NOAA and other articles will refer to it by the Okeanos Explorer name. The USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16) has ceased to exist. It would not be right to title Okeanos Explorer under an article name that is no longer relevant. Readers will not understand why Explorer info is under that title. I would be against your suggestion. If you want, the article should mention the former name as USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). The Okeanos Explorer is followed on Twitter, not USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16). Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An example of how this situation can be handled is the first paragraph of the FA USS Siboney (ID-2999) which has redirects from its former names, such as USAHS Charles A. Stafford, and mentions the previous names in the lede. I think that something along the lines of "...MV Okeanos Explorer, formerly known as USNS Capable (T-AGOS-16)" would do the trick nicely. Keeping the article name Okeanos Explorer seems perfectly logical. Cheers. Haus^Talk 20:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as the article is named Okeanos Explorer, its ok. Some places it is called NOAAS Okeanos Explorer. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Marcantonio

Excellent article about him here--Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul and FARs

Well I can't close ones that I nominated or edited non-superficially. Raul scheduled TFA 17 days in advance at the start of the month. He normally doesn't do this, so maybe he is going to be lying low until Aug 18 or so :( YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Started a discussion at WT:FAR YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse. Please don't take the recent discussions at FAR to mean that you've been doing bad things and that you should leave. Nobody thinks there is anything wrong with individuals; rather, some are questioning the current culture at FAR. I sincerely hope that you continue to stay, as your presence has been totally positive—I'm sure others would agree. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Brit mafia

(DYK) ... that the Brit mafia supply the majority of your mentors? --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take it easy for a day or 2, as you seem to be getting stressed and might say something you'll regret - I noticed some expression of feeling unwanted at FAR. Send me a message if you want to talk - hell, you can even argue with me or call me a thug in a pinstripe, with a Tommy gun in the brolly, I won't mind :-) --Philcha (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to back off and not engage in it for a while. (I didn't know Geometry guy was British, until he disclosed it yesterday. I didn't know what he was, thinking perhaps Australian. It even occurred to me he might be U.S. or Canadin. His comments are remarkably free of nationalism, one of his many fine qualities.) —mattisse (Talk) 16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Wikistalker

I saw you were reviewing my article, which made me very glad. :) But then a review never appeared, and it made me very sad. :( I sat around for a few hours editing random pages and waiting for a review to appear. But it never did. Woe is me! Shii (tock) 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Which article is yours? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

James Joyce

Are you not able to access this page? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain your edits on talk before reverting twice (see WP:3RR). I don't have a membership, and I can access the information. Please use the article talk page before continuing to revert, to explain why you can't access a page that others can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am able to access that page, Dabomb87, but twice before when I tried, it asked for my membership and login. —mattisse (Talk) 19:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So, when another editor indicates it is not membership only, please consider discussing on talk before reverting. AGF. Similar issues are occurring at the unreviewed featured article page; stability in FA and related pages is a concern, so please discuss edits before reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. And I suggest you do the same. —mattisse (Talk) 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, when you have been reverted once, and a reason has been given, then you should attempt to understand the problem before you revert twice. Would you please remove this edit now, since it's not correct? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead links

Mattisse, a tip about marking links as dead. Many links can be retrieved from the Internet archive, and it's a very quick and easy process. For example, you marked this as dead in Joyce. If you go here and enter the URL into the box where it says wayback machine, you'll come to this page, which gives you a list of archived versions. Choose the one you need, which will almost always be the most recent one e.g. November 18, 2007, and add that to the article instead. Some websites don't allow their archives to be stored; for example, newspaper websites sometimes need their pages to disappear for legal reasons, but I've found that most of the time citations can be saved this way. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I lost my edit in the conflict, but basically I would like to thank SlimVirgin as I have always wondered how to do that. Thanks! —mattisse (Talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The link checker is a very handy tool for identifying and fixing dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I use the toolserver, but I have found that it is quite inaccurate. You really have to check each link, as it indicates many are ok when they are 404. There is no substitute for checking. —mattisse (Talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is not always correct, which is why I always check. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Struck comments

If you want to discuss this, you are welcome. If not, that is also fine. Concerning the article at GAR, my view is it is preferable to see how the discussion pans out before discussing concerns that articles may be getting listed inappropriately. Best wishes, Geometry guy 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

disingenuous

..is a fightin' word. Has that ad hominem kinda odor... Ling.Nut (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think someone is stalking me. That was one, sole, edit to an article that was not at FAR. So what was the point of the comment? The discussion is about articles at FAR. So what did that one edit prove? You tell me. —mattisse (Talk) 01:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if it means anything or not. And this may sound shocking, but I doubt it matters. First of all, a long time ago I myself used to comb through peoples' contribs looking for evidence when I disagreed with them. I don't do it now, but only because I've become very very lazy, or perhaps thge laziness is actually residue from my period of burnout. Either way, I don't do it now, but I think it's common and even normal (though perhaps a bit confrontational, in some contexts). Secondly, if I could summarize absolutely everything that I have ever said to you about on-wiki interactions, it would be this: "Learn not to give a crap." Let it go. Water of a duck's back. It washes off. And soon. I learned this lesson out of context... many years ago a mother of several children told me she'd been (very literally) pooped and peed on more than a few times. I said "Wow, that's disgusting". She said, "You know, one thing I've learned after years of being a mother — poop just washes off." :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't image stalking someone. And I am surprised you did it. Recently someone told me to post on an article talk page, but when I refused to do it, retribution followed, nonetheless, when that person insisted on posting on my behalf. Retribution only on my talk page, but under my posts on the talk pages of others not even involved! Some editors clearly have nothing else to do but follow me around! This place is really an interpersonal circus; the encyclopedia is just an excuse for everyone to ego bash and post sweet nothings on favorite other's pages. You are one of the few editors I respect, and whose view I value, despite what I am saying here. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha! If you respect me, then you are one of the few who do! I'm sorta two-dimensional—sometimes I channel User:Geometry guy, but more often than not I represent a faint, faded echo of the legend that is User:Malleus Fatuorum. ;-) But back to the point... ummm... I'm not sure my limited attention span enables me to follow that whole retribution anecdote, but.... uh... I dunno. If someone came at my door calling me an idiot, I'd mention WP:DENY then very studiously ignore him or her. And continue to do so, no matter what.... I get very very involved and excited in debates sometimes, but I am almost always involved in the topic rather than the person. With extremely few exceptions. I'm not perfect. yet. But anyhow. WP:DENY. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, in the (I hope unlikely) event that you are actually implying that I stalked you to James Joyce, I hope that your mentors will step in and remind you of 1) the terms of your ArbCom, 2) how to find articestats on that article where you can review my long history with that article, and 3) how to review the articlehistory and diffs to see just how long I've had it watchlisted (Dec 2006 FYI). Whether at FAR or not, I thought it to be unnecessary tagging of an FA, of which I follow quite a few. It was an example of the kinds of issues being discussed at FAR; please refrain from personalizing issues, and when you make statements about things like stalking, please consider reviewing the history of the article first, lest you breach AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)t

eh, we're discussing. let's not butt heads.... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it amusing that SandyGeorgia must remove my perfectly legitimate post to her page. Unnecessarily POINTy, in my opinion. —mattisse (Talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your page IS a little more public than a confessional, methinks! Judging from events!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) maybe it was pointy, I dunno, but also yawn-worthy. I am so used to folks getting irritated at each other on-wiki that.. it kinda... washes off... so...maybe... it.. should... wash off... Ling.Nut (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it? In real life this quality of mine made me a lot of money but here it is merely a curiosity that I garner so much attention. —mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent, free the indentured colons of Wikipedia) <shrug> Wikipedia is its own weird world. Just shrug it off. Or rather, shrug the people off. I actually wish I could shrug off the issues; as time goes on, I'm becoming more apathetic.... Ling.Nut (talk) 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I am becoming more apathetic also. I have no real interest here anymore. There is nothing I care about. That is a loss, but so be it. I figure it happens to everyone, as the "lifespan" here seems to be around three years. —mattisse (Talk) 03:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I would like to actually edit articles more. I may do so. I enjoy making awards and images, though it is very, very time-consuming. I am considering putting the "does not want to be an admin" ubox back on my bio page though. Blech. Argue this, argue that, blah blah blah. I weary myself nearly as much as others weary me. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the way to go. Nothing good comes from the grunt work, except abuse. Writing articles is the fun. And if I do anything more here, that will be it. P.S. Never trust anyone who does a lot of sighing. (I know that from real life.) —mattisse (Talk)

What can i say? I love the concept of Wikipedia. It's the reality that sorta has a mildly unpleasant odor. But then again, that describes most (but not all) of reality. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the reviewing/copy editing business that has the "unpleasant order" you describe. The article writing is enjoyable. I think I will get out of the grunt work business, stop worring abot the "quality" of wikipedia, and just do my own thing writing articles thaat I feel like doing, without trying to grab "stars" and "awards". That is the only chance I see of regaining any pleasure and escaping the uglines. —mattisse (Talk) 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(Ugh, too many colons.) Er, I am still looking for the fabled balance that leads to happiness. Article work often involves flying solo, which can get lonely after a while... But if content review is the locus of most of your unhappiness, then perhaps article work is the way to go. Prob is, content review involves much more interaction with others. Interaction with others is where we all wanna find that Cheers-like atmosphere. So perhaps (I think) the best way to go may be to find a Wikiproject in an interesting area & that has some active & friendly members, make friends with the latter and do content work in collaboration with them. Ling.Nut (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wise words Ling.Nut. I'd have left wikipedia some time ago without the help and support of the WP:GM project. Even then, as you say, article work can be a pretty lonely furrow to plough, so I think it's all about getting the balance right between doing what you want to do and helping others. My feeling is that Mattisse sometimes hasn't been selfish enough. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You've spent a lot of time reviewing/copyediting Mattisse, perhaps too much relative to spending time on those topics that genuinely interest you. Perhaps you're just feeling the effects of that imbalance right now. Reviewing in particular is pretty thankless, and there's no real sense of achievement, no matter how well you do it. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Ling.Nut and Malleus have just said. Do what you enjoy doing rather than what you feel you ought to be doing. Associate with people who share your interests or whose company you find enjoyable for personal reasons, and scrforget the politics. "My feeling is that Mattisse sometimes hasn't been selfish enough" looks like a very good diagnosis. --Philcha (talk) 07:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that. When trying to put Wikipedia to rights got too tedious around the start of this year I turned to Wikisloth and took the Darwin anniversary opportunity to have fun writing a few minor articles, one of which turned out rather better than expected. Your help with the struggle to get that whimsy through FAC is hugely appreciated, hence the award below. However, the same goes for you: it's easy to get sucked into "doing your duty", but that's only worth doing if you find it rewarding. Fun comes first! . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is all very well, but can anyone honestly say that for their next GAN, they don't wish Mattisse was there to review it? (just speaking up for those of us that would feel the lack of such great reviewers!)YobMod 00:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I fear that GA standards are too low. But you are very kind. Unfortunately, Ga supports the propagation of psychological inventions publicized by one man. The article in question is a fork at best. But, hey, anything on pop culture gets a free pass. I give up on the task of giving psychiatry/psychology any credibility on Wikipedia. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I could hardly disagree with you more Mattisse; all psychological/psychiatric theories (yes, I do understand the difference between psychologists and psychiatrists) are the work of one man, like my all-time favourite cognitive dissonance. How many men were involved in the development of transactional analysis? How many men was Freud, Jung, or Adler? GA standards are neither "too low" nor too high, they simply represent a pragmatic attempt to improve the quality of this encyclopedia. Pragmatism has its limits, which are far short of perfection, admittedly.--Malleus Fatuorum 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. So goes my faith in humankind and in GA. Feel free and have at it. Wreck what you will. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean, I should withdraw my article, California's 12th congressional district election, 1946, which has been waiting a month at GAN, from it because it is worthless?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Another political article by you! Actually, I had not noticed it as I am basically getting out of the business of reviewing GA articles. I hope you are not going to guilt-trip me into doing it. You know I am already suspicious of you, as I suspect you are either 21 or 67 years old and I cannot tell which. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we worry too much about other people's stuff. nvm, I don't think quality control in Wikipedia is very relevant atm or in the near future, as regards to articles or other stuff like flagrant POV pushing. If I get banned or fired, too bad, I'm not here to toe the line and get a 100% approval rating for being irrelevant. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. What does "nvm" and "atm" mean? I am 100% behind your mode of operation. —mattisse (Talk) 01:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

nvm="never mind"; atm="at the moment". Dabomb87 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm 46. (don't be fooled by my concert photos). This one was started before the Senate article, but has been slower to turn out. I wasn't hoping to get you to do it, but was hoping one of the other readers of your page would get interested. It is the final segment in my Nixon series, though I may reconsider on Helen Douglas once the new bio of her comes out in November. Khrushchev is next. Just have to get up the energy to sit down to it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Aha 46, I would have guessed that age next, except maybe 38 instead (fooled by your concert photos). Do you promise that this is the final of your Nixon series? —mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, maybe Douglas, but that has to await the new book. Really, there isn't anything more to write about. It is his early career that interests me. There isn't enough material about his '48 campaign to do a FA about, maybe enough for a short GA, but aside from those two, I don't have anything more to say about Nixon. Besides, Khrushchev is going to be a difficult article, then I have promised Ssilvers to improve Ruddigore.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Equivocating already? Besides, I am finding Khrushchev quite interesting. Had a discussion with my brother who has a very poor view of Khrushchev. But he did point out, contrary to his POV, that Castro and Khrushchev got along very well. Like minds in many ways. —mattisse (Talk) 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I've resumed work on Khrushchev, though I will have a military history buff look over the Great Patriotic War section when I've done with it. Ruddigore will be part of the G&S Wikiproject (I'm not a member of any wikiproject), and the timing of bringing it to FAC will depend on how people are doing with others of the Savoy Operas (at one time I was interested in G&S though it has probably been 15 years since I have been to one).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Fertilisation of Orchids Award
		Thanks ever so much for slogging away to bring a whimsical sketch up to FA standard. Remember to have fun! dave souza, talk 11:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a pleasure to work on that article. There are few articles I have enjoyed as much. Also, you are a great model for how to compromise when that is for the good of the article but also to stand firm when needed to retain its beauty and spirit. —mattisse (Talk) 12:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it overall! As it happens, I don't want to pester you or distract you from having fun, and hesitated to mention this, but I've been playing in my sandbox and have now put Explanation of the mechanism – suggestion up for discussion at the article talk page. It gives a bit more detail, but risks getting too technical. Anyway, don't worry about it, will think it over cautiously before doing anything. . dave souza, talk 12:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I only want to make changes that genuinely clarify the article, and if in doubt will leave it alone. As you suggest, the exercise may come in useful in trying to improve other articles which I find pretty impenetrable, but then I'm not an expert about botany. If you could leave Coral Reefs aside for a while, it needs a going over to improve the secondary sources. I've obtained Charles Darwin, Geologist by Sandra Herbert, but haven't had much time to read it yet. So, my aim is to work more on that article soon, but not yet. Perhaps I should remove it from the GA queue. . dave souza, talk 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoke too soon! Hamiltonstone has started the GAR, so will drop other things and try to use the new source as appropriate to help respond to questions. Any further comments or questions, such as things that need explained, will be welcome. Thanks again for your help, dave souza, talk 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, a review will be useful and I can try to help out. I was looking at it more from the perspective of a potential FA. Is that your ultimate goal? —mattisse (Talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's it through GA, all rather sudden! Yes, guess duty to the year of our Darwin makes it worth going for FA, will try to catch up with my reading over the next week, see if there's anything I want to review and then put it forward. Any assistance greatly welcomed! dave souza, talk 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashokan Edicts (Delhi)

Hi! Matisse,

It is quite some time since I requested you for help, after the Chitradurga Fort article was successfully nominated by you on DYK. I have another request for you to please see this history related article User:Nvvchar/sandbox/Ashokan Edicts (Delhi) for nomination on DYK, if you find it interesting. You are free to edit it as necessary to remove any oddities or close paraphrasing. Also, can I post the article Chitradurga Fort for GA upgrade? Thanks. --Nvvchar (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Curry

Hello Mattisse. With regard to this edit on the Tamil language article, the dictionary does actually say the word is from Tamil or from a cognate word in another Dravidian language. The online interface to their dictionary only displays the first entry (a verb) by default - you need to click through to the second entry. I've therefore taken out your tag - I hope this is OK. Please feel free to re-insert it if I misunderstood your point. -- Arvind (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I will take your word for it, though I did search around to make sure it wasn't there. But if you say so, ok. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to the OED, which is quite unambiguous. I hope that's better. --Arvind (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sz deadlink

Hi Matisse, I just saw that you added a deadlink marker to the NICE guidelines webpage on the schizophrenia article. I did a little poking around, and it looks like the guidelines were updated in February, 2009, but when I try to click on the links, the pdf causes my computer to freeze up. The non-pdf part of the page is here: [3] and I think the one that we want is the NICE guidelines updated here: [4] but since I can't make the pdf work, I can't actually read it over to verify that this update hasn't changed the content in such a way that this is no longer a valid reference. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't get the pdf to open either. It is just an empty link. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you have to click one more link beyond that... on that page, it only gives you the link to the pdf and tells you to make sure you have acrobat. Here's the link directly to the pdf: [5]. On my computer, it gets about halfway through downloading and then hangs, so don't click that link if you're in the middle of something important(!). Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That link is an empty link for me. It returns a blank page. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... and the other one too? Curiouser and curiouser. Edhubbard (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This one is not blank: http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG82 But that is the one you wanted to verify the text of, right? By looking at the pdf? This one is blank: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG82FullGuideline.pdf —mattisse (Talk) 23:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the second one, with the pdf in the title is the one that keeps hanging for me. It opens part way, and then stops. You might be having a version of the same problem I am, but even worse. I can see that it's not completely blank when I try to open it, but it won't open all the way... what version of Acrobat do you have? I have Reader 8. In any case, NICE needs to make these things more readable. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the plug in for Firefox 3.0.13. It updates automatically so I am sure it is Reader 8. I don't normally have any problems opening a pdf. —mattisse (Talk) 23:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Ok, so I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 normally, but based on your comment, I just tried it with IE (I hate to do that!) and it seems to work in IE. So, perhaps this is a compatibility issue with Firefox that NICE hasn't tested? Not nice NICE. Can you let me know if it works for you? I'm going to start looking to see if the pdf still contains the relevant info. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I have not upgraded to Firefox 3.5 is that I am concerned that some of my add-ons (upon which I depend) won't work. Have you had any trouble? I tried the link in my IE 8 (I believe) and it is still a blank page. Don't know what to think. —mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm using Firefox 3.5.2 normally, but based on your comment, I just tried it with IE (I hate to do that!) and it seems to work in IE. So, perhaps this is a compatibility issue with Firefox that NICE hasn't tested? Not nice NICE. Can you let me know if it works for you? I'm going to start looking to see if the pdf still contains the relevant info. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I have not upgraded to Firefox 3.5 is that I am concerned that some of my add-ons (upon which I depend) won't work. Have you had any trouble? I tried the link in my IE 8 (I believe) and it is still a blank page. Don't know what to think. —mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was an early adopter for FF 3.5, and it did break a couple of things (google gears being the most notable for me) but they're up to 3.5.2 now and they seem to have worked that out. So, for most things FF 3.5 seems pretty good now. But, if you have specific add-ons, I wouldn't want to say something that wouldn't be true for that add-on.

As for this crazy pdf, I am reading it over, and they do seem to have changed some things from the old guidelines. Relevant to first-line care (since that was the first place you noted the deadlink), they say this:

6.10 From evidence to recommendations.

In the previous guideline (which incorporated the recommendations from the NICE technology appraisal of second-generation antipsychotics, NICE, 2002), in some situations, SGAs were recommended as first-line treatment, primarily because they were thought to carry a lower potential risk of EPS. However, evidence from the updated systematic reviews of clinical evidence presented in this chapter, particularly with regard to other adverse effects such as metabolic disturbance, together with new evidence from effectiveness (pragmatic) trials suggest that choosing the most appropriate drug and formulation for an individual may be more important than the drug group." (p. 130).

So, it seems that some things might have changed with the addition of new evidence, and it might be worth figuring out how to get this new information incorporated into the article, or at least to temper conclusions that have been superseded by new evidence. I'll take a look through this thing, but it's 399 pages long, and comes in at 3.16 MB, so a sizeable document. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is rather vague and disheartening. It is rather like antidepressants. The end of the road seems to have been reached there and we are in need a new concept, or to reach back further in the causal chain to wherever neurotransmitters arise, instead of influencing them directly. —mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we're reaching a sort of plateau with what the meds can currently do. My fiancee is a sz researcher (post-doc with Stephan Heckers at Vanderbilt Psychiatry [6]) and one of the things that seems to be the wave of the future is early detection and a sort of "pre-habilitation", even prior to the first episode, since after even a single episode, patients rarely, if ever, attain their pre-morbid state. So, early markers, endophenotypes, etc, etc are becoming the hot topics, for example at SOBP. Of course, this is all complicated by the fact that the genetics people have turned up at least a dozen genes. I did see part of a great symposium at SFN about a year and a half ago where they talked about how the genes link up to pathways, and there might be some specific targets there. So, I'm optimistic about the long-term future, but in the short-term, I agree that this line of treatment is reaching the limits of where we can hope to go... of course, this is still better than just 100 years ago. Edhubbard (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Long-term optimism yes. But having received the Schizophrenia Bulletin since the 1970s I think perhaps that will be in the twilight of my lifetime, if then. —mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Expert syndrome?

Hi, Mattisse. I think your comments at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Münchausen by Internet/1 and the responses they received may be an example of the difficulties experts in a subject experience at WP. The upside is your thorough knowledge of the subject area, but one of the downsides is excessive concentration on the way in which experts analyse the topic, when there may be other ways of looking at it - a good example of this might be Jesus, about whom theologians, textual critics and historians of 1st century Judea would all adopt very different perspectives. Münchausen by Internet may not deserve its own entry in DSM, since (from the point of this very non-expert) it looks like the core behaviours and causes are standard Münchausen's. However the way in which it seems to play out on the Internet appears to be distinctive and to have caught some attention, at least for a while. I've added my name to the list of willing reviewers if it's re-nominated, and if I wind up reviewing the article and not crushed in the January-sales rush, I hope I could ask your advice on the technical aspects. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I have no objection to a popular culture article being written that does not mislead people into thinking it is a medical diagnosis. Then the article should follow the standard polices/guidelines regarding WP:V and WP:OR. Supporting WP:RS should be found for the term, so that Wikipedia is not pushing one man's theory. Articles on the general culture of the internet should not be used by the article's editor to put together the editor's view of how Münchausen by Internet operates per WP:SYN. The very fact Münchausen by Internet is capitalized as it is, instead of Münchausen by internet as standard terminology for diagnoses dictates, shows it is not a diagnostic term commonly used in the field. Write it as a pop culture article and drop the medical/scientific pretensions, unless support for this angle can be found. And drop the OR speculations and enhancements.

Münchausen by Internet is a term used to classify behavior patterns that mirror elements of factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy expressed primarily through internet communications such as chat rooms, message boards, and Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

Does Feldman mention message boards, IRC etc.? He is concerned about on-line support groups for health issues only.[7] I don't think Feldman is into the other behaviors mentioned farther down, such as stalking. Stalking has little to do with the motivations behind Factitious disorders and therefore, by analogy, presumably behind Münchausen by Internet. The editor has interjected OR and this must be carefully checked. Articles that mention problems that "sound" like they are talking about Münchausen by Internet but do not mention the "diagnosis" of Münchausen by Internet should not be used to support the article editor's thesis that these are the same. The article is OR the way it is written now. You need someone besides Feldman validating the term, not just someone mentioning Feldman and his term. Wikipedia will become a major vehicle to push Feldman and his term.[8] If you check this article as carefully as you checked the article by Malleus you reviewed, you should have no problem, and make sure the statements are supported with no weasel words. Who uses this term to "classify behaviors", for what purpose and under what conditions? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom mentors, is this the direction you envisioned your task going? I did not.

Munchausen by Internet will not be re-nominated for GA, at least not by me. That is unfortunate, but it is a simple issue of economics: it is not worth it to deal with Mattisse's irrelevant accusations, tangential arguments, and bizarre claims. Had Mattisse access to the sources, I hope that 99% of her questions and complaints would be answered. Anyone who wants copies of the sources, email me and I'll attach them to a reply.

You defer to her as an expert, Philcha, after she exhibits an astonishing misunderstanding of GA criteria in the GAR. Such gentleness she receives from her trusted friends. If only we could all treat each other that way. If only true experts in the field could be as understanding and nurturing where articles need to be improved. Someone who is so easily influenced or impressed with a user that has very recently displayed some alarming confusion should not be performing a GA review. Malleus passed it to Ling.Nut, who passed it to Philcha. GA renomination, in this climate, is not a wise decision, despite my confidence that the article--needing improvements though it may--meets basic GA criteria.

As ever, I will remain interested in improving the article. I am wholly disinterested in another round of argument and drama with Mattisse. GA process fail. ArbCom fail. Mattisse win. Everyone goes home happy. --Moni3 (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mon3, I am merely concerned about the encyclopedia. It is not for us to write articles on novel topics that are "similar to the discovery of a new organism", as you say you are doing. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not for the synthesis of new information. I suggest you recast the article per Malleus's comments on the article talk page and clear up what he called the article's "identity crisis." Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 13:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't pass anything on to anyone. What I said was that if the article was renominated at GAN and not picked up quickly then I would undertake to do the review. It's my belief from my own experience that Philcha would do a fine job, very likely better than I would have done, and the article would be significantly improved in the the process, so it would be disappointing if it were not renominated. Re your general comments, I think the tenor of the whole discussion surrounding this review started off badly because of the poor decision made by the original reviewer to (effectively) quickfail the article, and has gradually become less and less helpful. I broadly agree with the position that Mattisse has espoused, although I do regret thst she was unable to strike a less gladiatorial tone. The poor experiences some others of us have had with that reviewer earlier also didn't help in producing a more collegial atmosphere, and I'm perhaps as much to blame as anyone for that. Perhaps one day I'll be perfect, but I've still got a ways to go. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been over 24 hours since I offered to send anyone interested the sources cited in the article through email. Although Philcha, Ling.Nut, Mattisse, and Malleus have been active during that time, no one has taken me up on it, especially Mattisse. Yes, Mattisse, Feldman does mention IRC, message boards, and chat rooms. He actually employs the term "Usenet boards" but someone else thought that was dated when I put that in the article and changed it. Why would you believe me here, when you certainly do not believe the article? Wouldn't having the sources answer your questions?

I don't know how to express my disappointment in this ArbCom mentor process. It seems I would basically have to behave like Mattisse to get you folks to do your jobs. Instead, I disengage, remark only about content, refuse to rise to the accusations that I'm synthesizing information and conducting original research, while Mattisse defends an indefensible and astonishingly incompetent GA review. Seriously, is decency so foreign to Wikipedia? I am refusing to renominate the GA, not because I don't think the article does not meet the criteria, but because of the stress and headache I will go through while she rambles on, displaying a complete lack of understanding for core Wikipedia policies. I'm seriously considering abandoning review processes altogether, which is unfortunate because I really would like the articles I write to be the best they can be. Is your desire to be able to end your posts with winky-faces what compels you to be impotent? Do I have to bring out more effective language and say that Mattisse is full of neurotic bullshit, and scream like a mentally imbalanced 14-year-old? Or is this the honest to God best you folks can do? --Moni3 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POT evidently applies, I suggest that you strike these aggressive and uncivil assertions. A bit more patience and a suitable plea to uninvolved editors is more likely to be succeed than this evidently unproductive name-calling. . . dave souza, talk 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Halofolliculina corallasia

Hi, Mattisse. I start work on a "new" phylum knowing nothing about it, it's what all the best editors do :-) Re DYK, do you already have a hook in mind? I usually start work on a new subject by doing a search and listing prominsing sources at the article's Talk page (did I mention I know nothing?), so I'll start now. I can really only give this the week or so it will take to get it ready for DYK, as I have to finish Bryozoa before I forget how these work (incidentally, I know nothing), get Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets through GA review (I hope!) and finish GA reviews I'm doing on 4 articles. --Philcha (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, could you not have picked a more obscure subject? Scientists appear to know less than the general public realise about biology - as I've realised when working on Annelida (!) and Bryozoa, and now about a protozoan species. All the sources about Halofolliculina corallasia are by various combinations of under 10 researchers mostly in the same journal, and focus on the impact on corals (possibly 2 factions, one calling the disease Skeletal Eroding Band and the other "Caribbean ciliate infection"), so we have to avoid to straying into Skeletal Eroding Band's territory. What are your ambitions for this article? I dont' think there's a GA's worth of sources to provide adequate coverage, and we'd have to be very careful about WP:SYN and other nasty diseases. I can knock out a patchy article using what sources I've found, and see if that provides enough for you to work up a DYK hook. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Your original message about this said, "I am very interested in coral". If you want to work on coral-related articles, it might be good to drill down from Cnidaria, which provides basic info and refs about corals. Or you could approach the subject via reef ecosystems, which would give you the opportunity to find a wider range of related subjects to work on, e.g. ecosystems, conservation, economic aspects, and all the types of organism that coral reefs support. --Philcha (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a GA or anything. I'm just not interested in that. I like starting little articles that others eventually expand (and also it was a red link that I came across). This one is interesting because scientists, being focused now on the critical importance of coral reefs, are looking into what is destroying them and discovering how much they do not know. These now obscure topics (specific agents that infect and kill coral) are just now being detected and will become important in the future. I don't have your thoroughness. I am looking for a simple little article that explains a few points. I can't read lengthy, detailed articles, never mind writing them! (I copy edit long ones under duress, the Fertilisation of Orchids being the pleasurable exception). Halofolliculina corallasia only has to be over 1500 characters for a DYK and make some clear, understandable statements. My attention span is fractured lately. I can learn the coral and coral reef vocabulary slowly by dipping my toe into small, circumscribed articles. I am considering books on coral to acquire. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 12:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)