User talk:MFTP Dan

I tend to ramble a lot to the point I get incoherent in content debates sometimes. If I say anything totally confusing or even mean-sounding, I probably didn't mean it that way, so just let me know and we'll work it out.

I usually am open to help with Peer reviews, specific FAC areas, and GAN second opinions, but I am a little busy with the FAC of Eternal Blue (album) and the GAR of Bleeding Through at the moment. If I am urgently needed, my Discord handle is @american_horse. I am on Wikipedia's official server where I am nicknamed the same as my username here, but I usually am not active there (unless pinged).

Upgrading MOS:ALBUMS to status as an official guideline

I started a discussion about upgrading MOS:ALBUM to be an official MOS guideline. If you're interested, feel free to give your input.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been keeping tabs on the discussion. I have nothing of value to add to that discussion, and broadly agree with what changes are being worked on. I've always treated MOS:ALBUMS as official myself, and think it's probably good for the project to make it official. mftp dan ^oops 17:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to make sure you knew about it.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Bleeding Through retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You're a gem. Thank you so much, it's an honor. mftp dan ^oops 16:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Eternal Blue (album). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Wow, no need to even nominate!? Amazing. I think I've peaked. mftp dan ^oops 16:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Hah, I figured I would just get it done and save you the work :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Eternal Blue (album)

Congratulations, MFTP Dan! The article you nominated, Eternal Blue (album), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for help?

Hi Dan, if you have some time, do you think you could help me out with my (desperate) attempts to fix/fixing Spit ? I would like help/feedback on its content, prose and formatting and things that I should do. This was GA'd in 2017, and since March 2023 I have made many many messy edits to this page which I feel have hurt its quality and misrepresented things (see here for an explaination of what I think I have done wrong in Spit). I tried a peer review in September 2024 but it did not get a response after two months so I abandoned it, but as the person who made these edits, I feel a sense of responsibility in correcting/fixing them.

Your GA feedback really helped when reviewing Until the End and I would really, really appreciate if you could help out, but I also understand if you can't. Thanks. // 15:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Chchcheckit (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall Spit being much of a problem, I've actually previously been involved with the article - in its original GA era. I'll try to look at it in the next few days, but it might be okay. I actually used to edit alongside Statik N a lot, but they're semi-retired now and come out every once in a while. Statik usually tried very hard to keep it that way, and I think it's possible you're overthinking it. mftp dan ^oops 01:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think a lot of it comes from finding new information that kinda fucks with the chronology of things. its becoming overtly detailed and confusing, ghhh. I;m trying to summarize what i currently know. // Chchcheckit (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Statik's modus operandi was making articles extremely thorough in detail and sourcing - sometimes too much. So I can understand your concern. I've been pretty busy, only making routine small edits the past couple days, but I'll see what I can do when I get out of work tonight. That probably won't be until the witching hours in your time unfortunately. mftp dan ^oops 17:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

by now you should know better lol; like Sky Ferreira, night time is very much my time.

also speaking of "extreme detail", i did this rough attempt at consolidating what i know about kittie/spit yesterday. a lot of it is uncited since i was summarizing/copyediting from album pages. excessive sourcing isn't exactly the problem, moreso than using them to fine detail a painting (which is what's happening at this rate) which in turn fucks up the narritive. i.e. in that Juggernaut 2000 source (aka Hefflon 2000; i'll need to scan this onto IA given its obscurity) Morgan confirms Atfield plays on the re-recording of "Paperdoll", disproving the current article's claim that she did not play on the album. Also of note is Morgan revealing she played bass on "a few song" on Spit's, naming "Raven" and "Immortal" and one other song (never named) as examples.

tldr; very messy stuff/lore. Chchcheckit (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

p.s.: sorry, don't think i'm waiting on you to do this either; i appreciate you taking your time out and im not gonna rush you. Chchcheckit (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Cheeky, I like that. Gave me a good grin. mftp dan ^oops 19:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

the saga continues. why is this so long and complicated. at this rate im redoing it from the ground up. part of me also feels sick because its like 2022/2023 all over again // Chchcheckit (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

This version you have in your sandbox is clearly better and I encourage you to make use of it. Just be careful not to forget anything good that was added as part of the original GA. I do agree though, the more I read it the more I think this article was really poorly written. This at minimum needs a copy-editor's attention, but you're about to give it the tender love and care it needs. mftp dan ^oops 02:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Just be careful not to forget anything good that was added as part of the original GA. Some stuff is copied over and changed from the page as it currently is (and citations are also/mostly copied over also), but what should I look out for/what do you suggest? // Chchcheckit (talk) 13:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

(current version; im still trying to process info) yo. im a little unsure/stuck how to do reception and music stuff bc a lot of of reviews focus more on gender and the like instead of providing musical commentary. like there's at least 1 paragraph i got that is decent musical commentary in the current critical reception but i found several which accuse kittie of being a novelty/marketing gimmick and then say nothing else of note, which (for obvious reasons) irks me. idk what to do with this bc the last thing i wanna do is regurgitate the gender rhetoric when it's been identified as an issue. secondly i think the "aftermath" section is massive as is an im not sure how to organize it; i did consider moving the first paragraph to the "release and promotion" but it doesn't flow.

idk id like your take on the matter. otherwise background and recording are basically done and will need to ce rel/promo // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Let me see what I can do. I can't guarantee that I'll be much help. That really is annoying and frankly sexist of the press, but I'm unfortunately not surprised. mftp dan ^oops 15:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hmm...could use some more cohesive organization and quote-descaling. There's meat on the bones here, we just need to trim some fat. We're also one too heavy on the review table - I believe the limit is ten unless something has changed without my awareness. Given that it's a retrospective and less universally-recognized than Allmusic, I would recommend removing Popoff from the table, but keep it in reception of course.

Let's briefly talk about Aftermath. I also think there's some heavy quoting in here that could be reduced. Morgan's interviews with Decibel and Canada Arts seem simple to summarize, but I like the impact Mercedes gave with Brave Words. After the anniversary concert stuff, I think you should probably split the paragraph into another, because I think the decline of nu metal is a separate, but relevant, issue. Not sure yet if I'd recommend placing it before or after the whole story of how the band would actually progress. There's more to do, but that's what I have for now. mftp dan ^oops 15:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Also. I'd be bold and demonstrate myself, but I don't love messing with people's sandboxes without their permission. mftp dan ^oops 15:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

alr i took in yr comments. also im pretty sure there's 10 reviews in the table. yeah // Chchcheckit (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for citing the wrong award for Alice in Chains. mftp dan ^oops 02:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

anti-trout; you're doing good plus im impressed the amount of work you've put in!! // Chchcheckit (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Fish are funny tho. mftp dan ^oops 15:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

but: are fish friends. Chchcheckit (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)