User talk:Mattisse/Archive 20

(User talk:Mattisse/Archive_19) - (User talk:Mattisse/Archive_21)

Thanks

Dear Matisse, Thanks for advising me about your nommo for Buckingham Palace. I've been out of action for a while and see that the period has just expired. Is discussion still live? Please reply to my talk page.FClef (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please help in upgrading the article. The discussion is still alive. All the above links are still relevant as the FAR goes on for quite a while, so your input would be greatly appreciated. The article should meed Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which have been upgraded since the article's last FAR two years ago. Not being British myself, I find the amount of information considered "common knowledge" confusing, with much not explained and with so few citations given, and many of those just to the Buckingham Palace website; the lack of scholarly references is a disservice for such an import article for Britain. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thank you

Thanks for joining me at paleolithic diet. I was getting beaten down. It must have become a FA during the paleolithic era of Wikipedia before criteria were invented. Cheers :-) --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It shows that all the discussion currently going on at Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria about upping the criteria to include stricter requirements for reference sources for FAs, (stricter than WP:RS) means nothing in the face of a blatant misuse of references, which I feel happened in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could not agree more. By the way with all those edits of your why are you not an Admin? And also you should come hang out around WP:MED more often. More people who understand refs are desperately needed. It often feels like we are fitting an uphill battle against those pushing pseudo science and unfounded commercial ventures or hate campaigns. Check out Fluoroquinolone toxicity for example. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Always bad when there is one primary, invested editor. But check out Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation where one editor is trying to remove the POV on the other side, legitimately from what I can tell. Unfortunately, editors are too quick to support sometimes. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Will give you a little of the background. Fluoroquinolone toxicity was the original article based on case studies and animal experiments plus a few petri dishes. I used this to make broad reaching claims in people. I came along and starting editing. After about 50 edit an editor reverted everything with no comments on the dozens of edits I had made. I therefore rewrote it at Adverse effects of fluoroquinolones the term supported by the research and basing this entirely on review articles. User Literature is sort of half way between the two camps and is now rewriting FQ toxicity. This is now were we stand.

I did the GA review of water fluoridation and disagree with it being FA at this time. Still needs some work. Xaso is very reasonable though.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad you weighed in on Water fluoridation as that editor usually gets articles through FA with no trouble (an FA regular) and it is only because Xasodfuih hung in there against the automatic supports and basically rewritten the article that that didn't happen this time. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Swede Hanson (wrestler)

I wanted to thank you for your review on this article. I really appreciate you taking the time to do it, and I'm very sorry that I didn't have time to respond to the review. Things are calming down now, so I managed to make the fixes you suggested and have renominated the article. I certainly don't expect you to review it again, but I wanted to let you know that your time was not wasted, as your suggestions were very helpful and have been implemented to improve the article. As a fellow GA reviewer, I know all too well the frustration of picking apart an article only for no one ever to look at the article again, so I wanted you to know that this is not the case here. Again, I apologize for my lack of response and thank you for all of your helpful reviews. You are a true credit to WP:GAN. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix LEAD

Do we want the prevented from drawing a salary example in the WP:LEAD. It has been at issue and removed before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in the lead. I did not put it in the lead originally, I don't think. Rather, I think I changed its position in the lead so as to improve the flow. At one point I considered putting it in parentheses, but then I decided to move it to a more logical place. But it might be an unneeded detail in the lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you close to supporting? Do you have any thoughts on the Pete Williams issue in the discussion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the discussion and I don't know what the Pete Williams issue is. Ah, I see. I have to agree that using a journalist to support a view on the constitutionality of an issue is not very sound. He is not a constitutional lawyer, is he? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

He is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Pentagon spokesperson. Does that give him any credibility? The problem is that there are so few sources, that it is somewhat counterproductive to remove them.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, what position is it that you perceive me to be taking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see this article reach FA because it is interesting and not something I knew anything about. I know you are a hard worker. But no, a spokesperson is usually a journalist and being a pentagon spokesperson does not have anything to do with constitutional law. I perceive you as taking the same view as Pete Williams - a pro Saxbe fix view. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I actually beleive the framers of the constitution would probably prefer if a Bentsen had to go back to a 1970 salary rather than 1988. I think it is a good fix but should be stricter. For a House rep like Solis, it serves little purpose. Why don't you take a shot at the language and I will watch as I have been doing. If I think it is clearly wrong, I will step in. I do not think Williams should be expunged from the article, but will defer to your editorial effort if it is reasonable as a neutral party.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. But what about the weasel wording that was just added? - "though Hatch was believed to have been a major candidate" —Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For Solis see First 100 days of Barack Obama's Presidency. No one says it is settled. Historical tradition and legally settled are two different things. Where does Yates say that he thinks it should go back to day one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It was the O'Connor, John F. (1995) PDF that stated that. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Did my super copyeditor just resign?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I continue to hope for your support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find the article confusing. It seems like it is a political issue. Why is the appointment of Hilary Clinton being contested in court, if not for political reasons? Reagan did not appoint Hatch, although he wanted to, because his Attorney General nixed it. It seems far from clear that this issue has been settled with all sides comfortable with the outcome, reading through the article references that are online, like the one from Edwin Meese. It has never been to the Supreme Court. I am missing how it is not a political issue. What else is it? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about the constitutionality of the issue. In terms of political controversy there is none. Now Democrats and Republicans both use it and help each other use it. See the latest change to the beginning of the legality section and consider coming back to lend your assistance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will try to regroup and look at the article again. I do find it interesting. Maybe I don't know what you mean by "political controversy". Is not the suit regarding Hilary Clinton's eligibility politically driven? Or are you saying that it is purely legally driven? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It is likely politically motivated. What we mean by political in the article is whether the Dems and Reps fight about the issue. If for example the Republican party were behind the movant in the case, it would be political in this sense. Feel free to work with the text as you feel is appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We miss your industrious efforts. Apparently, you have decided against further involvement. We could use your support and hard work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I intend to help more. Just didn't have the time yesterday! Probably today I will! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix Judges

There have been six Saxbe fixes executed and all have been for cabinet positions. A seventh should be on the way for Solis also a cabinet position. Judges have been considered in relation to the clause, but alternative nominees have always been put forward. The clause pertains to judges. Judges are civil officers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn you had a paragraph on several who served as judges and legislators during Washington's time. Maybe it was in one of your sources, like Meese. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference from the WHO

Wondering if you could give some comments at Talk:Obesity/GA2. I think the WHO should be quotable directly without having to prove their statements. However I have gone and done this by creating the page exercise trends. The reviewer continues to remove the quotes from the WHO.

"Worldwide there has been a large shift towards less physically demanding work. This has been accompanied by increasing use of mechanized transportation, a greater prevalence of labor saving technology in the home, and less active recreational pursuits."

Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked through it all and I do think the reviewer on the harsh side to require such strict sourcing to pass a GA review. The GA requirements for sourcing are not that strict that the WHO article should not suffice. Surely the studies referenced by the WHO are backup support. The Wikipedia:Good article criteria require reliable sources only for "for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." (On the other hand, in general I am suspicious of global statements made by WHO or anyone regarding observations that seem self evident or face valid, but where, in reality, a cause-effect relationship has not been shown.)

You could consider asking a question on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations regarding this, as questions there are usually answered by User:Geometry guy who has some clout and shepherds the GA process in general, or asking User:Geometry guy directly on his talk page. I am reluctant to enter a comment myself, as the reviewer has the last say anyway and if you cannot convince him, I doubt my jumping in would help.

If the reviewer fails the article, I would recommend the Good article reassessment. Especially if you draw attention to the problem via Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations or User:Geometry guy, that process should go fast. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank. I think he might have just missed a number of the reference I have added.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gersony Report

Please see my response at Template talk:Did you know#Gersony Report. I am gob-smacked by the credibility challenge here - not that the findings were correct or not, but that the findings are asserted to exist. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your words. BanyanTree 10:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The Prunier book, to which I do not have access, verifies the trip was actually made and it is used as a source on what others said the findings were. However, apparently Prunier does not address the issue of whether there was a written report. Most of the rest of the article is sourced to "Human Rights Watch (1999)" and "Purported 14 October 1994 cable from Shaharyar Khan to Annan and Goulding, subject heading "The Gersoni 'Report' Rwanda", hosted by webpages.charter.net (Alternative copy at rwasta.net)". This is not enough information for these to quality as reliable sources. The statement: "The contents of Gersony's findings were leaked to the international press, infuriating the RPF government" is sourced by the New York Times refers to a "report" and does not specify that the "report" was unwritten. Nor does the last source, as far as I can tell: Lieutenant Colonel Thomas P. Odom USA (ret.),""Guerrillas From the Mist: A Defense Attaché Watches the Rwandan Patriotic Front Transform from Insurgent to Counter Insurgent"" (PDF)., Small Wars Journal Volume 5, July 2006, p. 6-7. Reviews of the Prunier book say it is confusing to anyone without in depth knowledge of the Rwanda situation, and perhaps that is the case with this article. The sources verify that there was a free lance consultant hired by the U.N. to go to Rwanda and that the trip resulted in controversial "findings". However, whether nothing was ever put into "writing" is not verified, as far as I could tell. Are you saying it was all word of mouth? —Mattisse (Talk) 13:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. No, you're quite right. Prunier writes as if there is an actual report, while Des Forges specifies that Prunier was instructed not to write a report after the briefing with the government ministers. I've reworked the description to divide the two stories with extended footnotes. I had used Des Forges' work because she gives a bit more detail than Prunier, whose spends about 10 pages on background for RPF killings, of which the description of Gersony takes up only about a page.

I reconcile these in my head by assuming that a brief or preliminary deliverable was prepared for UNHCR, which prompted the diplomatic kerfuffle, and that an actual final report was what was stopped in Des Forges' account. Of course, neither source I have reconciles the apparent discrepancy so that's all my own theory and OR, which is why I didn't even attempt to try to explain it in the article. I personally do not believe that a report, in the sense of a polished and complete product, was ever finished. Gersony did field visits through 4 September, while Khan, in his purported memo, says he was informed of the findings on 14 September, after it had been bounced from UNHCR up to the Secretary General and back down to Under Secretary General Annan. There isn't a consultant in the world who can come up with something longer than a briefing memo and some powerpoint slides within a week of the end of research trip like that, and then only if they work like demons to make sense of their raw data. There simply wasn't time for a Gersony Report, with a capital "R" and without quotation marks, to be written. I had been hearing rumors about the Gersony Report for years, so I was quite surprised to realize while writing this article that there was no actual report.

Getting back to the hook, would "... that the "'Gersony Report", the controversial finding by United Nations contractors that the new government in post-genocide Rwanda had carried out systematic killings of civilians, was never released?" be acceptable? - BanyanTree 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, "never formally released"? And actually, that is unclear. Released to whom? The consultants were contracted to make a trip and undoubtedly they reported something to the UN, if the UN hired them. Consultants have to provide something in order to get paid usually. The article is very confusing. So, you are saying that the UN never released anything? (I would have to go back through the article and sources to clarify.) And are they obligated to release such "reports" always? Also, make sure whatever you do put in the hook is sourced by a reliable source. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"never formally released" seems alright to me.

Right, the findings have never been publicly acknowledged. The timeline is roughly - Gersony and his team do some research, and a week after finishing they send something about their findings to the UNHCR high commissioner. The UN freaks out that a report they commissioned is basically saying that "the good guys" of the genocide, whom the international community is throwing aid and money at, is carrying out massive targeted murders. The UN secretary general sends some high level underlings to Uganda to sort it out. Gersony briefs the UN and says that he totally stands by his findings. He then does the same brief later that day for the Rwandan officials, who deny targeted murders. The UN official position is that revenge killings are expected, but they're sure the RPF is not actually carrying out political killings, but that the release of the finding would be damaging to Rwanda (not to mention the UN, US and other countries that decided to back the RPF after the genocide), so they're going to stop the report from seeing the light of day and instruct the team that did the research never to discuss their findings. My assumption is that the consultants got their payment since the client changed the terms on the fly. So the UN never released anything from Gersony's research and only discussed it internally and with the Rwandan government. Someone leaked the findings to the media at which point the RPF denied everything while the UN rather cleverly kept repeating that there was no "report", which is technically true but avoids acknowledging the findings. Of course, as there is no report to read and Gersony and his team refuse to discuss it per their client's instructions, the Gersony Report quickly became a bogeyman in contemporary Great Lakes studies. Which is why I keep saying "purported" and "reported" in the article, since the sources are like 'Prunier talked to the former Rwandan Minister of the Interior to whom Gersony gave his UN-supervised presentation, and what the minister remembered about the findings a few years after the fact is..."

I'm really at a loss about how to clarify the article in a way that doesn't create false confidence in facts that would be controversial even if they were discussed openly, as opposed to having another layer of controversy on if the report exists and if the purported findings of that report say what people think it says. I'm not surprised some book reviews report confusion. - BanyanTree 16:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, one way is to rely completely on your sources. "As related by XYX, Gersony did such and such. However, a conflicting version says that ABC actually happened instead." It is not up to you to reconcile conflicting reports. You just describe what the sources say happened, giving more weight to the more reliable sources rather than the advocacy group or information they put forth. I think all the qualifications in your lead are Words to avoid, unless specifically sourced, and could be called Original research. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the proposed hook. Have your concerns about the accuracy of the hook been addressed? It's running off the end of the queue... - BanyanTree 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The hook needs to be able to be found within the article, either in the lead, or in some other easily recognizable place, and it needs to be sourced. I can't find the hook in the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No

Thats not how it works if the source doesnt meet wikipedia standards besides that you can go on the source and it says in the opening paragraph he is biased on his ranking. If you think it should be put back in then try discussing it on the page maybe somebody will take your cause up but until they we dont add information without a VALID source.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It isnt a valid source end of discussion i dont know how you think you saying it is would make it so ive fixed my mistake and just removed the 411mania part.LifeStroke420 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wolters

When you get a chance, I've started the discussion at Talk:Rudolf Wolters as to whether we think we are ready for FAC. I think we might as well put it up and see who salutes. Maybe some of the Speer magic will rub off on Wolters. Unhappily, the Lane nom failed due to lack of consensus, there were no opposes, but only one support after a month, and I'm considering my options there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the Lane article. Go for Rudolf Wolters! A different kettle of fish. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Notes to self March 18)

• • (these are notes only and not the original posts.) *Posted to User:Risker:You said on WT:FAR that Geogre had made comments on the template. Are you saying Utgard Loki is Geogre? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Response [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARisker&diff=278022960&oldid=277998030:The last person who ranted on my page about the passive voice was Geogre, who regularly rants about it; to be honest, I didn't really look at the signature and just assumed... Risker (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • (another post)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Risker&diff=next&oldid=277998030 I figured he was, and dropped Geogre a suitably cryptic note in that connection about two years ago [1]. Given the response I decided that (a) I was probably mistaken and (b) I really didn't care that much. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• OR is rarely at Ani! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Beilein

Did you miss my clarification request?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think your position is valid. You are saying that, although the father can give his son a ride home, he is not allowed to ask his son if he wants a ride? He is not allowed to tell his son he has a flat tire? There is a reason why such quotations are not considered reliable sources for something like the NCAA rules. Find the NCAA rule book and quote it if you want to make a statement that sounds so ridiculous. That would be a reliable source. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am just seeing that you want me to quote the rule. I am going to go back digging.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ernest Hemingway project?

I am interested in starting am Ernest Hemingway project to improve content related to his life and works, and have proposed the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Ernest_Hemingway_project. Please share your thoughts there! kilbad (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation terminology

In response to your FAC comments, I attempted to fix Water fluoridation's terminology problems, and followed up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation. Further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Force India VJM02 DYK hook

I added refs to the article, and replied to your comment here. Apterygial 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I took care of it on DYK. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Apterygial 23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Saxbe fix

Opinion needed on talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cloud Door

oh that'd be nice...no problem dude...go ahead. I hadnt heard of DYK till now...I, kind of, just edit on wikipedias. anyways, i havent removed that info...i hav just moved it below in the 'reception' section. thanks again --Anant Singh (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. And the info too. Regards, —Anant Singh (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cloud Door/Mani Kaul

Hello Mattise,
I was just going through your edits in The Cloud Door and am quite happy with the way you have constructed the Indian Film Festival part and the controversy. But I'm not quite sure if this was Mani Kaul's first erotic film. This was definitely the first one to have on screen nudity, but then, eroticism need not necessarily mean to have nudity. I think he has made an erotic film before this too. I'll see if i can find out anything about it online. Regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ziegler reference that we are using says "For the first time, despite a treasury of native erotic art and literature, an Indian erotic film had been made by Mani Kaul, the aesthete among Indian filmmakers, and could be seen at the festival."[2] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed the site says so, but there have been instances, where an erotic film WAS made in India, that too before The Cloud Door. The only film thats coming to my mind right now is Utsav (1984) which was based on a play by Bhāsa and had Vātsyāyana (the author of Kama Sutra) as a principal character in the film. The film was erotic, just without any on screen nudity displayed by any of the actors. So, its quite debatable.--Anant Singh (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

But was it made by Mani Kaul? Also, remember, Wikipedias mission is verifiability and not "truth". Unless you think the Ziegler site is unreliable, we can go with what we can find supported. In any case, we can reword it or remove it. We do need a reason to explain the threats of "riot" though. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

what if we reword it and mention about the Indian censor laws which do not allow on-screen nudity at all? due to that law, political parties and its workers do create problems in the screening of a particular work of art - Bandit Queen, Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love, Fire, M.F. Hussain's paintings of nude godesses, etc.. If its against the "law" then obviously it gives a reason to explain the riotin and all.--Anant Singh (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for the Indian censor laws? Also, if you think of a better hook, you can add it (or I can add it) as

• alt ... that such and such and such?

As long as the hook is reliably sourced in the article, is under 200 characters, and is intriguing. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me search for a good reference...i'll think of the hook too. Regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Great! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK->Articles created/expanded on March 5->Forward Poland

Mattisse, hi! Re your check of Forward Poland here: I've increased the word count to what I think is 2000+ characters, ex spaces. Could you be so kind as to give it another pass? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. But I don't think you need all those headings. They detract from the article, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tablefied the "structure" section, thus reducing the headings. Hope that helps, regards Anameofmyveryown (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't go

Mattisse, I wasn't attacking you. If you have any technical problems, then I can deal with them. I did not write the language of the piece. That is Liz. If you want her to change some of the phrases or colloquialisms, ask her. If you require grammar clean up and the rest, then mention them. It has been copyedited by four different people so far. Sure, there are things that are missed. There are things from the Johnson page that are missed until now. Can you please come back and help me find things that -I- can work with. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And Mattisse - I am sorry if I was brisk with you. You are a great reviewer. I just need something I can work with besides what appears to be "the wording isn't really appealing to me". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave specific examples from the third para of the lede, as did Fowler&Fowler from the first two paras. Those were examples. The whole article needs a good copy editing, in my opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Then go through and copy edit. Fowler threw out malformed jargon and showed that he did not know what he is talking about. He is also continuing to harp on something a long time after there was already a change. If you see some grammatical problems, feel free to change. Awadewit has done so already. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Java

I saw your comment at the Masten-Quinn House nom that you couldn't see the NRHP document. I can see it and I don't have anything "special". My guess is that your Java isn't up to date. Java's website has a tool to check if your version is the most current. Shubinator (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I did update it but I haven't tried the document again. Big documents, including PDF's often crash my browser, Firefox 3.0.7. The browser grows very pale and freezes! I'll try it and see what happens. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'm also on Firefox 3.0.7. Let me know if it works! Shubinator (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Just left you a message that it doesn't work, although my Java is up to date. Frustrating! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, you could try IE, but I've got Firefox and it works for me. Java applets are generally more stable in IE than Firefox though. Do you get any error message? You could try opening the console (right click on java icon in system tray, click open console) to find error messages there. Shubinator (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I don't know how to work it. It has a digital signature error. If I run it anyway, it just shows some tiny thumbnails at the top. I can't manage to figure out how to make them large enough to read. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does have a signature error. When I open it there's a tiny window that takes up a third of the screen. It's a pain to read, but possible. Maybe try restarting to make sure the update's been processed? Anyways, I have to head out now. Shubinator (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewording of The Cloud Door's Plot

Hello Matisse,
I'm not quite happy with the rewording of the plot as it actually gives out wrong information. the film is kind of an artistic flow of images and not everything is explained in it. its not really true that the parrot brought the lover out of gratitude; also, the lover just knows the name "kurangi' but doesnt know who she is...its his imagination, which is conflicted when he hears the captured parrot utter her name. anyways, i'll try rewording it and not make it look like a copy-paste. the problem is that i can write a plot synopsis having seen the film, but m not quite sure i can find suitable sources for that.
regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the plot to get rid of the copyvio as a temporary measure, as that was disqualifying the DYK. I believe the plot section does not have to be referenced for film, TV series etc. because it is considered a description and not an interpretation. So I believe you could factually describe the script without interpreting any of it and not need a reference. Alternatively, you could reword the cut/paste into you own words and use the same reference. The plot section should not be very long anyway. Just no copyvio/cut and paste. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 11:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

alright, no problem. will make the amendments soon. regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Water fluoridation 2

Have you had a chance to read my response to your latest (March 3) comment in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation? Briefly, what I attempted to do was to be more-consistent about terminology in that article. I modified the article to following the source's use of the term "fluoridated water" to include both naturally and artificially fluoridated water, and the term "water fluoridation" to mean the act of artificially fluoridating water. Further comments are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I will look at the article again. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime the featured-article nomination has failed, with the nomination discussion archived to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation/archive1. I expect that the main problem for reviewers (and for me!) was burnout: we'd all looked at the article too many times. Anyway, I plan to nominate Water fluoridation again in a few weeks, as I have tried to modify it to address all the objections raised during nomination; so if you could follow up on Talk:Water fluoridation I'd appreciate it. Eubulides (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yay, I looked for it and couldn't find it, so I figure it had been archived. I would not have supported it anyway. At the most I would have removed my Oppose. I hope in the meantime you clarify it. It remained confusing, not straightforward. I hope you won't be offended if I say that I question if you understood the complaints regarding it. I didn't feel like you understood my complaints. In fact, the article seemed to be deteriorating with every attempt to fix it. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did have some trouble understanding your complaints, yes. I didn't seem to have as much trouble understanding other editors' complaints, as the other twp opposes in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Water fluoridation/archive1 were withdrawn after we discussed the matter further. I attempted to address your complaints with several changes to the article. I also made the following comments in response to your complaints (I am reproducing them here for your convenience, as they're somewhat scattered throughout the FAC talk page):

• "... water fluoridation could be defined as fluoride in the water supply whether artificer or natural." Reliable sources don't use that terminology. The cited source, CDC 2001 (PMID 11521913), says "Fluoridated drinking water contains a fluoride concentration effective for preventing dental caries; this concentration can occur naturally or be reached through water fluoridation, which is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply." Following this source's distinction between (artificial) "water fluoridation" and (artificial or natural) "fluoridated water" should alleviate some of the confusion noted above. I did this by inserting the following immediately after the lead sentence:

"Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride."

and then went through the rest of the article, systematically using the term "water fluoridation" to refer to artificial fluoridation, and "fluoridated water" to refer to either artificial or natural fluoridation. I hope this change fixes most of the confusion noted above. (Fluoridated water already redirects to Water fluoridation, which justifies emboldening the newly-added "Fluoridated water" in the lead.)

• "in the statistics presented it is not always possible to separate the controlled addition from the effects of naturally fluoridated water, or even from the effects other fluoridation methods in all cases" Can you please mention specifically which statistics have this problem? Effectiveness does contain phrases like "Compared to water naturally fluoridated at 0.4 mg/L, fluoridation to 1 mg/L ..." which attempt to make it clear that we are comparing fluoridation at recommended levels to fluoridation at natural levels. I did find that the article did not clearly state that fluoridation has a beneficial effect even in the assumed presence of toothpaste, so I added that (citing McDonagh et al. 2000); if you can mention other specific instances of confusing wording, I'd appreciate it.
• Reliable sources generally assume that fluoridated water's effectiveness doesn't depend on whether the fluoride is natural or artificial. This assumption has not been well-tested; however, I added to Effectiveness the York Review's comment that no differences between natural and artificial fluoridation was detected in the review, but the evidence was inadequate to reach a conclusion about this.

Eubulides (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that I was unclear. As I said, the most I would have done was withdraw my Oppose, and I did notice that some who withdrew their Oppose were less than enthusiastic about the article and did not Support. Next time I will try to be clearer, but in reading through the comments of others, I felt that they had somewhat the same complaint. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Did the above-mentioned changes[3][4][5] improve the article? If not, perhaps we should revert them, as they were made in an attempt to fix the problems that you noted. Eubulides (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Asthma

Twinkle reverted some of my changes on your behalf as vandalism. I was actually trying to correct the complaint of redundancy raised in peer review. My changes have been restored. Let me know if I didn't do this correctly. Wrin (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I had second thoughts after I did it, as I was overly hasty (due to recent vandalism of the article). So I step back. You are probably right. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at Template talk:Did you know.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cannibaloki 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey at FAR

Good evening, I am curious as to why you object to YellowMonkey being a delegate at FAR. I haven't spent much time over there, but I wonder if you had noticed anything troublesome that causes you to object. --Laser brain (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually came here to ask something similar. You can send it by email if you want. Raul654 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

When I say "it dealt more with off FAC matters" I was referring to the perceptions of the people attacking you rather than your actual actions. In your own words - "my perceived treatment". I hope that clears things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you very much. And I do appreciate your eloquent defense of me there. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for The Cloud Door

On 14 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Cloud Door, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Barnet DYK and peer review

Hi Mattise, thank you for reviewing the DYK suggestions for Battle of Barnet. I have answered and taken action to help verify them. Please take a look. If you have the time, may I trouble you to take a gander at the article and leave comments and suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Barnet/archive1? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hew Pike

Re:Hew Pike, can you clarify your comments here. The quote is from the last paragraph of the citation. Kernel Saunters (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that the quote "cool example and inspiring leadership" was referenced as I understand it, by the website http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/49134/supplements/12844. However, although I could get the website only a few times out of several tries, the quote did not appear on the web page, as far as I could determine. Therefore, the quote was unsourced. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Can I be a pain and ask you take a second look. The quote is contained on the second column and is the last paragragh of Pike's citation, "Lieutenant Colonel Pike's cool example and inspiring leadership........etc. If there are still issues here I'll change the hook. Cheers Kernel Saunters (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I just looked again, but this time I cannot get the webpage. Just the black bar that says "Gazette Issue 49134 published on the 8 October 1982. Page 14 of 36" but nothing under it. However, If you say that it is there, then I will take your word on good faith. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The page displays as PDF which has caused me issues in the past. I've just tried the page and it worked for me. The ref is defo there, I don't mind emailed a screen shot or the text if that would help Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I will take your word for it. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration comedy FAR

Mattisse, this comment by you assumes bad faith on the part of other editors. Your tendency to assume bad faith was recently discussed at a Request for comment on your editorial behaviour, and you appear to have agreed to stop making such assumptions of bad faith. Your failure to do so is problematic and interferes in the process of improving the encyclopedia. Please stop, and consider refactoring your comment above. Risker (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You misperceive my comment. You see me as acting in bad faith when I am trying to help another, innocent editor, hoping that he will not end up as confused and desperate as I did when I wandered unprepared into the ugliness of those disruptive attacks by a long standing editor. If someone had helped me in the beginning, perhaps I would have been able to see it all in perspective: that this disruptive editor is protected and and allowed to continue, while you take the time to warn an editor such as I am, is a failing of Wikipedia in my eyes.

In the RFC you point to above against me, none of the allegations received wide community support. That RFC was an example of bad faith against me by another editor. I remind you that I voted against you in the ArbCom election specifically because I see you as protecting entitled editors on Wikipedia, specifically the editors I think you are alluding to your post above. I commented at the time of my vote that this was the case. The three editors involved in the above "warning" from you about my assumption of bad faith, have repeatedly assumed bad faith on my part, one to the extent of taking out that RFC against me, the other two by tag teaming and making a joke of my two FARC nominations and by repeated personal attacks against me, the most recent here:[6] (This editor, until a few days ago, had an RFC open on him per Arbcom for just such behavior.) Since among the sins listed in the RFC against me were these two FARC nominations, and since one resulted in a delist, it would make the RFC accusations seem in even more clearly in bad faith if the second FARC also resulted in a delist. Now the generator of the RFC is stating once again that the second article should not result in a delist, although he has done nothing to help the article in the 1 1/2 months it has been on FARC, while he has generated a plethora of new articles and DYKs in the meantime. If you read through the FARC, you will numerous comments assuming bad faith on my part. You did not comment or intervene to help me at any of those points. Consequently, I do not see you as neutral in this matter. Therefore, I think in the interest of fairness, neutrality, and avoiding the appearance of bias, you should refrain from commenting about me in this matter. Perhaps you might address the recent uncivil behavior of this same editor toward another, innocent editor on FARC [7] rather than protecting this long standing editor with a record of incivility. This persistent behavior, despite an arbitration case and the recently closed RFC, is far worse than anything I am doing. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucy

Well, eh, thanks anyway ;) All you points were taken on board in a general sence, and not just with the specific instances you raised. About a month needed, I think, before we take it back. Onwards! Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement and the reassurance that I am not a bad guy! My intent was certainly not to deep six your article. And Fowler&Fowler is a very good editor, very conscientious. I am confused as to why, or even if, your article was removed. There was never an explanation, and it has not been archived, per the usual routine. Are you sure that it's disappearance from the FA list is not some kind of mistake? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It was kind of a relief to be honest when it closed, I think once things get steamy its probably best to give it a rest. I have no porblem with an intense review once its constructive (actually thoes can be very rewarding given that they lead to vast improvement in a short space of time) but maybe we were beyond that. These things happen. (O and gimme hasn't run yet to archive closed noms is all). By the way I agree about Fowler&Fowler, he is being most helpful to us. Anyway, talk later. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Compliments to you on the way you handled the whole thing. You were very constructive all around and made me feel much better, and hopefully Fowler&Fowler also. I see that Awadewit is doing a great job editing the article. I predict your next run through will be a piece of cake! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Steady there with the predictions. My experience of life and espically wiki is that it smites such grand hopes. Lets tread carefully. Ceoil (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Murray Chotiner

You may want to take another look at Chotiner. He is like Speer in a way, he is the kind of technocrat who was very good at what he did and was rather amoral. There's no redemption in Chotiner's story though, as there kinda is in Speer's and in Wolters' as well, come to think of it. I really like the nice little bit I dug up about his 1938 Assembly race, read it and see.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will. But I am sick to death of Nixon, and nothing seems new in the recent surge of Nixon info. And it was the fact that Speer was not unambiguously evil that made him interesting. (I noticed your "shocking" hook re Centre Praying Colonels football!) —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I like people like that. I wish I could find another Speer, but they are thin on the ground.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Rudolf Wolters has passed. That is a very good article also. Its quality was overlook at FAC. It is his ambiguity over Speer that makes him interesting. His behavior toward Speer has an emotional quality that is incongruous. Now if I read that Chotiner was genuinely fond of Nixon, that would be intriguing. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I will see what I can find on that subject. Usually when I write about someone, he's left memoirs or letters or something. Chotiner did not. I think Wolters is still waiting an image review. Unless they question fair use on the ID photo, we shoudl be fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It is still waiting, but it will pass as things stand now. FAC reviewing has slowed to a crawl. I would vote except that I am named as a nominator. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It will be fine. Slightly to my surprise. I guess with Albert Speer's help, one can do anything, as Wolters himself said. After this I will nom Lane, and then Chotiner, probably. I really want that centennial TFA in October. The problem with Chotiner is that he never really discussed his inner feelings to anyone, that I can see, and there are implications in the White House tapes that he wasn't in the loop on Watergate, but nothing definite (of course, since he nailed Voorhis and Douglas, some saw him as evil incarnate on general principles) Haldeman told Nixon on the tapes that Chotiner wasn't "wired in", but I can't find any sources interpreting that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought you already tried Lane? Are you going to do a "cram down"? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It had one support, no opposes when Sandy called time on it. I've done some work on it, mostly in article structure and images, and I'm prepared to try it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One support... Maybe you should wait until there is more activity on FAC. There are calls on the talk page of putting a do-or-die time line on FACs. It is so bogged down now. I will take a new look at Lane. But to be honest, I have not been able to read the article through so far. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If only interesting people got FA's written about them, then what's the point of having a complete encyclopedia? Incidently, I just bought some articles from the Washington Post, and they paint a very interesting view of Chotiner. Even the Post felt that Chotiner didn't know about Watergate. There's now the image of this guy who is a friend of Nixon but not really in the loop, and of course he turns out to be right when he calls Watergate "stupid". Interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang rewrote the fair use rationale for the ID photo, so that means it is now unlikely to be a problem. Things look very good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good. I should look at his wording so as to get good at writing those things. It deserves FA. However, regarding Lane, I am pessimistic. Remember, FA is "exclusive". Not every encyclopedic article can be a FA. Regarding Chotiner, maybe the only way someone could be a friend of Nixon's was not to be in the loop. None of the people in the loop seem to be friends of Nixon. I remember Kissinger telling the story way early on about seeing teeth marks on an child-proof aspirin bottle Nixon had tried to open one night in desperation. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Images are not my forte either. My articles seem to do better if there is some larger than life figure just offstage. Speer had his Hitler; Wolters his Speer. Woodes Rogers had his Robinson Crusoe. Lane has --nobody. I think when Chotiner is polished smooth by a month or so of just reading it over and over and polishing off the rough edges, the presence of Nixon just offstage will propel it thorugh FAC. You may be right on Lane, but I'm going down swinging. Incidently, I got interested in Lane while searching for "Saxbe fixes" to help out Tony. Lane didn't need one, he never served in Congress, but I routinely checked all of Wilson's cabinet officers and got interested in Lane. It is slightly ironic, Chotiner's involvement in an abortive scandal kept him away from Nixon for a time and let people like Haldeman and Mitchell get close. If Chotiner had been able to stay by Nixon's side, there might not have been a Watergate.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Chotiner had a moral compass? John Dean, the most intriguing (to me) of those around Nixon, either had one or saw that the jig was up and it was time to save himself. I rather think the latter was the case. Does Nixon still have the power to draw, as ultimately Hitler still does because there are still large aspects of his personality that have not been nailed down and questions remain open, like all charismatic individuals? Is that true of Nixon? He was not charismatic. Not a Che Guevara.—Mattisse (Talk) 03:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Chotiner had a moral compass, that there were lines he would not cross, and that is why in the White House tapes--well, read for yourself here. I think he would fight dirty, but would not lie, cheat, or steal.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Great transcript! But great because of Nixon's reactions. Oh boy! Never! The tape is interesting. Everyone thought Martha Mitchell was bats. No credibility. But Dean was another story. I think "moral compass" bodes ill for an interesting article. Your successful articles have been about ulimately incomprehensible people. Even Wolters, who was more knowable than most, still had his mysteries, although barely, hence the squeak through FAC. At least, that is my theory. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've desperately searched for any interpretation of what Haldeman and Nixon said about Chotiner but can't find any so I really can't use it in the article. I guess we will see. Lane is certainly understandable, the devoted patriot and public servant who worked himself into the grave, leaving his family poverty stricken because he worked for a miniscule government salary in the day before government pensions and the like. I actually feel I understand Speer quite a bit, maybe that is why I was able to write the article in such a neutral tone. Anyhow, I am going to bed, have to work in the morning. Thanks for your help and we'll see what happens with Lane, though I know you see him as dry as dust.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I even went to Chotiner's grave today and took a pic. About ten minutes from my house. The things we do for Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are obsessed! A nice grave, though. Elegant simplicity. How can it not been known whether Chotiner graduated from UCLA or not? I would start copy editing the article, but it looks like it is not ready yet. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done, you can start whenever you like. I'm at the stage where I just read it over and polish. NY Times says graduated, Wash Post says just attended for a year and then went to law school. Given the time constraints, I'm inclined to believe the Post. He would have had to start UCLA at age 13 or 14 at the latest, which I think possible but unlikely. Also, the Post gets a little more specific about it than the Times, which lends credability. Yes, Chotiner's grave was nice. A series of walls in recesses in the ground, most likely there are drawers behind them. NMP is a very spread out cemetery, given its location inside the Beltway. Land was probably cheaper then.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Good faith is infectious

Hi Mattisse, at FARC yesterday you noted my participation at your RFC. Most of my post there was an exercise in good faith, and a request to the editor who opened the RFC to assume better faith in you. If that earned a little goodwill, then thank you. One of the ways that goodwill spreads is to share more of it.

Casliber's request for ten days does come a little tardy; you have a point there. Yet Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. It's so much more gracious to say 'yes, best wishes with that' and hold back from expressing minor misgivings. The article will get better (let's all hope) and the good faith may come back from more directions. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 17:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the bad faith implicit in that RFC was shocking and has made me more callous, I fear, but also more realistic. I see now the Emperor is nude. He is wearing no clothes! Although "a little tardy", Casliber's request definitely is more weighty than all those other editors who bothered to assess the article objectively and weigh in with a considered opinion. So it will be a huge blow to his credibility if he does not massively improve Buckingham Palace now. That would be a very good thing, as that article needs to be excellent if Wikipedia is to fulfill its responsibility to its readership, including school age children. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The best way you could repay the good faith I had in you at RFC would be to extend a little more good faith in others. Or at least--if you really are jaded--perhaps a change of pace with content work? I'll be starting a featured content nomination in the next hour (not an article though); it helps keep a sense of balance to concentrate on the positives when wiki conflicts get frustrating. Regards, Durova^Charge! 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have very good relationships with almost all editors. I get along very well at GAN, DYK, and even FAC. It is only the clique on that particular article at Featured article review where there is a problem. Even other articles being reviewed there, such as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paleolithic diet I have no problems. Read my talk page if you doubt that. I dislike being accused of persistent bad faith when no one else has that problem with me outside of that clique of editors. What do you suggest, besides just accepting abuse from those particular editors? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Patience, along with eventualism and fairness, often go a long way. Usually between established editors, even people who usually disagree with each other will have natural moments here and there when they see eye to eye. It's good to recognize those moments. Combined with that, drawing the line politely yet firmly on inappropriate behavior, and using site processes. About three years ago when hardly anyone knew me and I was coping with two very difficult people (both of whom later got sitebanned), I started an essay that was basically a set of reminders of the person I wanted to be. If you haven't already read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, have a look. Quite a few people have added to it since then. Durova^Charge! 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read it many times but will read it again. However, those who condone and encourage Giano are only harming Wikipedia and article quality. Buckingham Palace remains a disgrace because Giano is encouraged to intimidate others to get his way. A poorly written FA will remain, an article that should be a shining jewel on Wikipedia, hardly a situation to condone. Denial is a very effective defense mechanism for those who employ it. I am not a Pollyana and do not think that all of Wikipedia's problems can be swept under the rug. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Giano and I disagree more often than we agree. Let's leave it at that. Best to keep disagreements to the venues that are appropriate for it and make it as clear as possible that views posted in other contexts are strictly on the merits. Durova^Charge! 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

What other venues have I posted in? It was not my idea to bring it up in an RFC nor on my talk page. Other than a warning to Giano, I have not posted anything about this across venues. However, if persons like User:Sam Korn are going to continue to lecture me that being called a troll is not a personal attack, I will consider ANI. I really resent editors who feel they must lecture me on Giano's behalf. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you've been reading them for DYK

I thought you'd appreciate this List of National Natural Landmarks in New Jersey, only two more to go. dm (talk) 23:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate it. Thank you. Very well done! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Warning

Do not post comments authored by other users as if they had made them. This is disruptive and deceptive. The use of user talk pages is a privilege associated with constructive editing. Stop immediately.--Tznkai (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Giano II

Hi Mattisse. Can I please request that you stop "warning" Giano II for personal attacks directed at yourself. It is clearly unhelpful and serves only to inflame the situation. Please recognise that warnings from you are unlikely to be well-received by Giano. If you wish to draw attention to a problem, it would be more effective and sensible to request input at the administrators' noticeboard rather than taking it on yourself. Your attempting to deal with the situation yourself only inflames it. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 15:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would warn him about his disruptive editing, specifically his calling my editing trolling. He and his band of editors have disrupted my ability to edit for Wikipedia and made my attempts to improve the encyclopedia an unhappy experience. I have already been warned by one ArbCom member, Risker, who assumed bad faith on my part because I tried to help another editor who was on the receiving end of Giano's disruptive editing. That is what provoked me to warn Giano. I would have ignored his personal attack against me if Risker had not warned me, assuming bad faith. I voted against Risker in the ArbCom election because of Risker's protection of this entitled editor's disruptive editing. If you will get him to leave me alone, then I will certainly do as you request. Why are disruptive editors like Giano allowed to continue, whereas I am never protected from his personal attacks? I don't understand. Perhaps you could explain. I am wondering why editors are not treated equally. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Giano's comments because I do not fully understand their context. They are obviously made in the context of a long-running dispute and I do not know it well enough to form an opinion. Saying that someone is "trolling" is not self-evidently a personal attack. As it is, you can make the situation better by stopping giving him "warnings" that do nothing but inflame the situation and further the dispute. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you fully understand the context of my comments? Have you looked into any of this at all or are you acting without knowing? Please explain. I have seen in other places that calling a person a troll or their work as trolling is a personal attack. I will ask on ANI if this is true, if you dispute that it is, as I find being dismissed as a troll very disturbing. He threatened an editor who was in a mentoring role with me. If Giano did not hinder my ability to work on Wikipedia I would ignore him. I did ignore much of what he did originally, like the personal attacks and blanking an article because I edited it, not knowing it was his article—in fact, before I knew about his articles and that they cannot be edited as normal Wikipedia articles. Both Risker and now you weight in for Giano. Why am I the one who has to put up with harassment when ArbCom has ruled on Giano's behavior? I do not understand why he is protected. I know that I went for a couple of years never warning people when I was personally attacked. I learned that I was at a disadvantage because I did not warn. I had no diffs to prove anything. I found the results are better if I am not so passive, because in the end I am powerless if I do not protest. Should I leave Wikipedia? Is that what you are implying, as I am not to be respected as an editor, not given the benefit of the doubt like others, and not allowed to protect myself? —Mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are twisting my words beyond recognition. I have no opinion on Giano's remarks, therefore I am not defending him or supporting him; I am not "weighing in on his behalf". I am requesting you take this dispute elsewhere rather than attempting to "warn" Giano yourself when anyone can see that that will not have a positive outcome. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"You are twisting my words beyond recognition." Obviously, I do not understand what you are saying or what you are doing. You need not assume bad faith on my part because I do not understand. Perhaps you need to be clearer. It seems to me that you are taking a side, that you are biased, that you are not helping me, that you are protecting a known disruptive editor at my expense. I do not see the usefulness of what you are doing to Wikipedia. Please explain so that I am not "twisting [your] words beyond recognition". You are not saying that it is ok to repeated refer to another editor's edits as "trolling"? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am simply asking that you cease the conversation on Giano's talk page, as it is unhelpful and will not be profitable. I am saying no more than that. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If he attacks me again, I will warn him again. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree that he is not worth taking seriously. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Thanks for your note. Glad to see you're still here. One thing I've learned about Wikipedia is that, despite its name, it requires patience. Cheers,   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have patience. I will take a page out of your play book! —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit of Robotron: 2084

Hey, I was wondering if you could give Robotron: 2084 a copy edit. I plan on sending it to GAN and would appreciate an extra pair of eyes. You always catch tiny little errors I seem to miss and reword things in a manner more in tune to a general reader. If you have any questions on the content, please let me know on the talk page and I'll check the original sources. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

OK. I will give it a look over. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Main Page Barnstar
		Matisse, I award you this barnstar for reviewing so many DYK hook suggestions this week. After looking at the current T:TDYK page, I counted 168 edits have your name attached to them. Whether that's a record or not, your diligence is duly noted. Rosiestep (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! Thank you for noticing and for counting! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Trunks

I'm glad to see your still in on this article. I seriously worried that I scared you off. Ont the article statis, if there are problems then we should fix them. I just don't want the article split again after I worked so hard to get as a single. Only to have certain users gloat and throw out "I told you so". So far I feel I've manged to build some nobility, but a little more couldn't hurt here and there. In responce to your statment, if you have questions about the character that could help you out, I'll be more than willing to tell you what I can in either mine or the article's talk page. As I also have a discussion on the article in my talk page. I look forward to any future involvement from you. Sarujo (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try to help you, but it is not a subject I know about. Glad to see you are still going strong also! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK

sorry, i'm still coping to learn more about the different aspects of wikipedia. i edited Shadows of Time and created Prashant Narayanan and edited the two quite heavily on 15th/16th of March and properly referenced for this "interesting" DYK (i think...). I dint know about this 5-day thing coz i took my own sweet time to edit the two articles. and also dint know about the 1500 word thing; wouldnt have nominated Florian Gallenberger then. so, can i nominate it for an earlier date? if not, do i delete the whole thing from the DYK nomination page? regards, --Anant Singh (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: thought of wikipedia as a liberal place...isnt 5 days too short a time for an article to be labeled "old"?

Sorry! The five day rule is a little flexible but it does not extend to 15 days. Here are the DYK rules. Some editors keep a new article in their user space until it is ready for DYK, as if the article is in you user space it does not count toward the 5 days for a new article. Also, you can expand an old article 5-fold and that will count if done within approximately 5 days. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"The five day rule is a little flexible but it does not extend to 15 days."
its just the sixth day today since i expanded those articles?? 15th and 16th march! cant it be flexible for a day or two?? --Anant Singh (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But did you expand them five-fold, that is, in character bits of prose (not including markup, references, infobox, lists, quotations etc.) you must have made the article five times as big as it was when you started, as measured by User:Dr pda/prosesize.js? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright...will delete the entry. its jus that all this was a little demotivating...anyways will keep in mind all these "rules" the next time. thanks for the extra info...regards --Anant Singh (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You can just leave it there if you want, as it harms nothing. I know it can be discouraging, especially when you nominate a good DKY and it gets ignored anyway! Current the DYK people seem to be doing a good job, but the rules take some getting used to. Remember how much I monitored The Cloud Gate? It can be a bit of an ordeal, but it is nice to get those DYK banners! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Heart of Rock & Roll

I'm not exactly an expert at this stuff... so now whoever the person is that picks what DYK's get selected, will pick between my DYK choice for this article, and your alternate choice? This is my first time nominating something in the DYK, so I'm still a n00b at this stuff. :) Your alternate take on the DYK for the article is pretty good! Have a nice day! CarpetCrawler (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoever sets up the queues does the picking, based on their personal preference which is probably influenced by the comments below the hook selections. They should fulfill the DYK Selection criteria. Sometimes they reword or modify the hook to something else when they put it in the queue. See:

• Template:Did you know/Queue
• Template:Did you know/Next update
• DYK rules

I have not, so far, helped with the picking of the hooks and moving them to the queues. I am trying to learn the process. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the clarification! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem with (foot/end)notes

Hello, I'd like to discuss some small problems about your changes[8][9] to the headings of my two articles:

• You renamed "Notes" to "Footnotes": they're not footnotes but endnotes (it's like acronym vs. initialism, there's an important difference), and besides I've read it's supposed to be titled "Notes" to be neutral and avoid wars between footnoters and endnoters.
• You moved the Notes above the Sources: I prefer to keep Notes after them, and actually as the very last heading, for practical reasons: mainly, I often have to annotate Sources (and sometimes even External links) to justify some claims or points about them (such as where I got the date of undated documents, or the name of the author when it's credited elsewhere, etc.) – though I don't have such annotations in these two articles yet. Another reason is accessibility and readability for "normal" readers: most people stop reading an article once they hit the barrage of Sources and Notes (just as they exit the theater once the credits start rolling), so I put all the scholarly stuff at the bottom after the regular contents, like it's done in books and articles.
• It's incidental, but in both case you used the wrong level of heading and both TOCs are messed up.

So I'd like to restore the heading "Notes" and move it back to the bottom, but I wanted to hear your side. — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is trying to improve the quality of its articles. I am going by the guideline Wikipedia:Layout, related to guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style. For DYK it does not matter if you go against the guidelines for the most part, but for anything else it does, such as Good article and Feature article status. Wikipedia has an interest in the standardization of article quality for the reader's sake. I was trying to do your article a favor by helping it out, but you can certainly revert it. However, if the articles gets read, probably other editors will try to fix the article also. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. It looks like this Wikipedia:Layout was recently changed by two editors without actual community notice or support (which seems to be the name of the game recently, from what I've read about the delinking arbitration). The old standard was only "Notes" (and freedom was left about the order of Notes and References); the page you quote is now encouraging either "Notes" or "Footnotes" which is actually a step backwards from the previous standardization and neutrality of the single "Notes" (to avoid Foot/End wars). The very fact that it is now promoting the patently wrong "Footnotes" (they are endnotes), and a cursory look at the talk page and archive, means to me that it's been done without actual public scrutiny or debate on what is a divisive and non-trivial matter.
• Last but not least, the actual problems are not addressed: annotation of the list of sources is often needed, especially with online sources, and becomes impossible if we are forced to put the Notes before them. The same sometimes happens with external links that need to be sourced (for instance the "official blog" or MySpace or such may need to be sourced, since anyone can create a fake blog and pretend it's written by a personality). Not to mention the vast issue of how readers stop reading once they hit the notes.
• Anyway, all this unscholarly backroom politicking at the MOS pages makes me sick in the stomach. Since I don't have yet annotated sources or links in those articles, I'm going to at least amend your changes to "Notes / References / Further reading" (and fix the heading levels). Regards — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 19:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK. As far as I know Footnotes/Notes have been considered interchangeable, although many editors use both. They have Notes for annotations and Footnotes for inline citations. The important thing is that the References/Sources come after the Footnotes/Notes. Further reading/Bibliography goes next, and then any external links. Just for clarity of order. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• About the use of both "Notes" and "Footnotes": those inline citations are not "Footnotes" but "Endnotes" or "Cites". By definition: footnotes are scattered in multiple places across a document but can be read without any manipulation; endnotes are grouped in a single place after a document but require a manipulation to be read (turning pages, scrolling, clicking note call). Thus Wikipedia uses endnotes, not footnotes. That such a trivial and basic distinction is mixed up removes a lot of credibility to Wikipedia articles and proves to me that this MOS is being changed by a cabal without community awareness or encyclopedic purposes.
• BTW, I notice that you say "References/Sources" (and indeed you hadn't changed my former "Sources" headings), but if we have to submit to the current MOS, "Sources" has been forbidden too and only "References" is allowed now. (Another very bad move, IMHO, since "Sources" made it more clear it's about sources used to construct the article, while "References" looks like a list of any good book on the topic and invites readers to mistakenly add more books they know, ugh.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are saying. Some authors use Notes for inline notes and Footnotes or References for inline citations. The only example I can think of right now is Street newspaper (although he uses different wording). I think what is important is the order, rather than getting hung up on names. I know that I was trained in a discipline which has a particular style. Other discipline have other styles. People from different countries have different styles or customs for formatting. Words mean different things in different languages. For many editors, English is not their first language. Wikipedia has to try to accommodate these differences while, at the same time, trying in ensure some standardization and quality control. That is why the wording is not as important as the order. Does this make sense? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Online/Offline at DYK

Sorry to bother you again: on the DYK suggestion page (for Annual Bulletin and ABA Journal) I still don't understand why you wrote off my sources as unverified books or offline that'd need to be AGF: they're all directly online. Another editor commented "It means that Mattisse didn't check the source itself but is trusting that the information is in there", all right, but then wouldn't it be more clear for us to say "Online sources not checked on good faith" in this case? — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to go look at the situation again to remember what happened in the case of your articles. Sometimes the problem is I cannot access the online version (subscription/membership situation); there have been cases recently where "error in digital signature" has prevented my browser from opening pages; sometimes verification requires reading many long tables or articles and essentially piecing the information together. If I can't find the info but the editor has credibility then sometimes I will accept the online info in good faith. I don't want to say I found the information if I did not. Hope that explanation helps. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(Last followup, I promise ;-) In the case of my hook, a Find on "first comparative" in the cited online source located the reference – but I realize you can't always read/check everything and you don't want to report otherwise. However my suggestion was about the wording of the report on the DYK page: I think that reporting "Book not checked" or "Offline source not checked" should be used only for paper sources, or it'll give the nominator a feeling that something is wrong when he knowns his hook was sourced online. If it's an online source that you couldn't parse or access, I think the report should mention "Online source", as in "Online source not checked, assumed on good faith" or "Online source not checked (membership)" or "Online source not checked (site down)" or such. I would be more clear for everyone (also, "Online source not checked" means that other admins can try it if they feel like, whereas "Book not checked" basically means "forget it, impossible to verify without going to a library"). Regards, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 21:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not quite understanding what you are saying. I read everything I can. There are many online sources and links given that I cannot access because I am not a "member" or do not "subscribe", or I do not have the necessary library card, or access to PMID, etc. like the biographical database that all Brits can access. In those cases I cannot check the online source. Some PDFs are too large to download and freeze my browser. If I cannot access it, I cannot check it. Have you read the following?

• DYK Rules
• Learning DYK
• DYK Approval

Maybe the above will clarify. If you feel that what you are suggesting should be a "rule", you should take it up on Wikipedia talk:Did you know where that kind of thing is decided. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in uninvited.... I have always used "X source accepted in good faith" as a blanket statement for any time I don't check a source, for whatever reason. Sometimes it's for like biology articles and stuff where I wouldn't understand it anyway, so I say something like "technical source accepted....". Other times it's for a source that I couldn't access, either because it's not online or it's behind a paywall. This is the first time I've heard of a nominator worrying that something was wrong....but in general, any time we say your source was accepted, it should mean that nothing is wrong. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK question for Le Griffon article

The external link is removed from the Shipwreck section. An article by the Great Lakes Exploration Group is used as a reference in the Construction section. Should this be removed? --Wpwatchdog (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Using it as a reference is fine for appropriate information. Glancing at the article, it looks good with no exterior links in the article body. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Zombia DYK

Updated the link, sent you an email. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

Regarding this, you appear to have misunderstood. The ODNB link was given as an extra reference to help User:Law if he could use it, or for anyone passing who could, as this reference is online. What purpose did you think it had? I can't really make sense of the "what percentage of readers" comment. Thanks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I mistakenly thought you were offering the link to hook specifically to User:Law. I was wondering what percentage of readers the new link would help, as User:Law specifically is not the issue, but rather the general accessibility of a reference to all readers. I was double checking the hook review, and the new link did not help me. I am sorry if I offended you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 23 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)

Loyd Wright

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)

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)

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

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. Ray^Talk 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)

OK. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:37, 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)

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 Dissident^Talk 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 Dissident^Talk 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)

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)

They Called Me the Catch Me Killer

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)

Anaconda Copper Mine (Nevada)

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)

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, Bencherlite^Talk 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? --Bencherlite^Talk 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)

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)

That Lady in Ermine

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)

Chotiner oppose

There is an oppose on the Chotiner FAC that I've not seen before, an oppose because the image in the infobox is fair use, and that it (according to the objector) should be possible to get a FedGov copyright photo of Chotiner (how, he doesn't explain). I've responded, but I'd be very glad for your advice on how to deal with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that done rather frequently lately, but I have never seen it hold up an article from passing. Some resolution can surely be attained. You could put a bang up fair use rational there. How the picture shows information in the article that simply cannot be explained through words. User:Rjanag is going through a similar Oppose at FAC Street newspaper with an editor who is challenging his use of newspaper pics. The editor is refusing to accept his justifications. At worst, you could remove the pic, as it is not required for an FA to have a picture. I believe it all lies in having a complete fair use rationale. Why is the editor objecting so sure there must be a free image around? I will try to think of ideas. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he has read the article, and realized that Chotiner was in a Federal position for only two years. The rest of the time he was a backroom guy, an electon geek. Chotiner did not make himself very public, especially in his final years.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to say that there is no free use photo available, that your use of it will not infringe on the copyright owner's commercial opportunities, that you are using a low resolution version of the photo, that it meets Wikipedia: Image policy, etc. Everything it says at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. There is a nice little form somewhere that you can use. Perhaps I can find it on a current picture and copy it. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if you would, I'd be grateful. I'm going to point out that there are no free use photos on WP of the three other men who served as White House Counsel with Chotiner, though only two have articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm gong to try to take care of the specific concerns Tony addresses in his comments in the Chotiner FAC in the next few hours. Do you think you could run through the article and give it a once-over as he suggests? I don't think he wants anything really deep, and is generally satisfied, just a fresh set of eyes. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after you are done. If you can make the wording as specific as possible, that will help. Many of his concerns I wondered about also. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm done. But a lot of it was due to Brian's complaint I was using the name "Chotiner" too often. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thanks for your help.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It passed! And I even spent an hour and a half at the National Archives this afternoon, hoping they'd have a free use photo of him, which they didn't. Thanks so much for your help. Woot!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I am so glad (although I knew it would!) It is good for your moral fiber to spend time in the National Archives, but why is this guy so obscure? He is not even mentioned in Nixon's Wikipedia biograpy. Maybe you should insert him. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

His philosophy was that a good campaign manager should neither be seen nor heard. The National Archives is an immensely great place to visit. Just so much there! I mostly spent time in the image room, now that I have a researcher card (anyone can get one), plan on going back.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chotiner certainly succeeded in implementing his philosophy then. So you were right about there being no existing official photograph. Well, who is next? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Archives did give me the following memo signed by Chotiner:

The White House Washington April 2, 1970

For: H.R. Haldeman From: Murray Chotiner Johnny Cash is great with a certain block of voters in Tennessee.

Obviously he will not say or do anything against Tex Ritter, who is running for the U.S. Senate against Congressman Bill Brock, for the GOP nomination.

At the Johnny Cash Evening at the White House, it will be most helpful if privatelythe President can neutralize Johnny Cash so he does not campaign for Tex Ritter. It will also be helpful if he could come into Tennessee after the primary.

Murray. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Humm. That is interesting. Supports your theory that 1. he did exist, and 2. he was definitely behind the scenes. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I may scan that memo, the typewritten portion is only about 3 inches square and use it for the TFA blurb photo when the time comes. The other memo they gave me is dated 1969, it is Chotiner to Ehrlichman and Dent, announcing he has been able to secure the minutes of the last Democratic National Committee executive meeting, thanks to "operator 41". Except, Chotiner reports, page five is missing and 41 is out of town. He is something else!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It must be strange to come across some real from this man with whom you have been preoccupied for so long. Even I fee strange about it. A verification. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not gonna haunt his grave, bringing flowers. I find it freaky when the guy at the archives knew who I was talking about. Most people are "Murray Who?" I think using a cropped image of the Cash memo, including the words "neutralize Johnny Cash" and the signature, will work as a TFA blurb photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think of you as the bring flowers type. That scanned image would be great for the TFA. It brings the reality home that your article is describing a real guy who acted in the way you describe. (You could look up his descendants, interview what is left of his four wives - no need to stop now!) —Mattisse (Talk) 22:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too late. I started work on expanding Checkers speech last night, though it is far from done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to go for FAC on that? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, not quite yet. In a while. Images are going to be a pain on that one, but I think I can justify fair use screencaps. But it is going to be a pain figuring out how to deal with the speech itself. I'm always thinking about FAC on any serious article (not just a DYK throwaway).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't you get a TV shot of Nixon's mug giving the speech? I suppose there would be copy right issues. How about a pix of a good Republican cloth coat? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it would be hard to verify that the coat was Republican and the RNC apparently holds the copyright on the broadcast ... cross that when we come to it. My proposed blurb and image for Chotiner TFA is in User:Wehwalt/Sandbox.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite

If u r interested, this article needs a GAN review. Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to, as you know that I like your writing. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I am not familiar with this dispute, but I'm concerned about recent comments you've made about User:Malleus Fatuorum. I have brought the matter up at AN/I. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't participate in that sort of thing. But I am sure Malleus will want to, so notify him. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

from the master of drama and the protogee of Malleus

Your opinions are requested

I would appreciate your opinions and contributions at an essay I am working on: User:Chillum/Discrediting your opponent. It is only a stub, but I think a significant essay can be written on the subject.

The more brains I have helping me the better I can get this concept across to people. More brains can also be a potent sanity check. Chillum 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to participate. I would have been glad to contribute, except for the outcome of my one post on your page, a comment meant to be helpful. Apparently posts on your pages followed. I cannot risk another such outcome, wanting to stay away from that kind of trouble; I personally do not get involved in AN/I drama and must refuse any offer that has that potential. Posting on your pages appears to have that result. Therefore, I will not do so in the future. Thank you for thinking of me. Under other circumstances I would be pleased to be part of your project. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I)

The hook for the article is located approximately half way into the subsection titled Northern Mine Barrage." The paragraph it's in reads: "Postwar examination of German records would reveal that the submarine lost was either UB-113 or UB-123.[49] This strange—and accidental—encounter marked the only time in all of Battleship Division Nine's service with the Grand Fleet that one of its ships would sink a German vessel.[49]" Thanks, Jrt989 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know

Apparently, you accidentally used a non-free image instead of the icons listed on the page which caused Cydebot to insert a whole bunch of rationale templates. Please make sure you use subst: versions of approved icons in the future. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but I do not think I did that. If you look at the link you sent me, [10], you will notice that those images were added by User:Cydebot. Each of those DYK hooks I have evaluated at different times. For example, the one for Herbert Kisza was entered at 19:49, the one for Guttorm Hansen at 20:13, the one for The London Eye Mystery at 20:29, the one for New Jersey County Colleges at 20:36 (and in that case someone entered below me (User:MBisanz) and I gave a follow up response at 00:48 and at that time the non-free images were not there. The next was at Oskar Gröning at 21:05, for List of papal tombs at 21:34, for Katsunori Nomura at 21:43, for United States Battleship Division Nine (World War I) at 21:54, for 2009 Pittsburgh police shooting at 22:05, for Munich Tramway at 22:31, for Duchers at 22.39. Over this time span of three hours , with me and others combing through the entries, these symbols would have been noticed if they had been there. As it was, during that time, no one noticed any wrong symbols. Everything was in order.

Further, if you go page to the previous edit [11], you will see that all the correct symbols were there before User:Cydebot made the one edit, and that Cydebot, in that one edit, removed pictures next to the entries and inserted that symbol. I did not do that.

Truly I am sorry that happened, but the evidences shows that I was not responsible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 12:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line seems to be, instead of using {{icon|DYK}} you can use {{subst:DYK?}} when pointing out an issue with a nom. (Somewhere near the top of T:TDYK is a table of the various DYK icons: DYKtick and DYKtickAGF for verifying, DYK? and DYK?no for raising questions, and DYKno for rejecting.) If you do that, there shouldn't be any problems in the future.

As for what was up with Cydebot, I have no idea. I don't think there is any reason to replace {{icon}}, since as far as I know it is not a non-free image, it's something that was created on WP and is quite widely used (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Icon). All I can think is that there was a bug and Cydebot went out covering images that it shouldn't have been. The bot programmer might know more.

In any case, I think if you use {{subst:DYK?}} in the future then we should be safe whether or not Cydebot malfunctions. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. This is confusing. I always use one of the four icons that appear in the editing window when editing an individual entry. I do not even know where to get the copy right image icon offhand. That is why I think the bot did it. It does not make sense, if you look at the edit history, that I did it. The bot inserted those icons. Still confused. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Then that is confusing. Here is where the {{icon}} templates appear to have been introduced; I'm not sure what Shubinator was "cleaning up" there, or how the original subst'ed images you put got removed.

And this gets us one step closer to the truth. Apparently User:WOSlinker changed, without consensus, the DYKtick and other icons to use the {{icon}} template. Shubinator has since fixed them (as far as I can tell); there's really no point for the DYK icons to use the icon template, since the whole point of the DYK icons is to be subst'ed (to avoid having a million transcluded templates at T:TDYK—that would make the page take forever to load). In any case, it looks like things should be ok now, and you definitely didn't do anything wrong--the problem was that someone changed the templates without letting anyone know. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And now I've watchlisted all the DYK icons to help make sure they don't get messed around with in the future. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up! —Mattisse (Talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)