Jump to content

User talk:Philcha/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Tyrannosaurus skull diagram

I remember you had an idea to make an annotated Tyrannosaurus skull diagram, but that we didn't have a proper image to use. But in this new free Plos one paper, there are some good ones that we are free: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0007288#top FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks / alt accounts

Phil, I'm very pleased to hear that you support a clean-up of the alt accounts situation, and I would support an RfC to stop the rot. This diff of WP:SOCKPUPPET since 30 August shows pushing and pulling in different directions, although it's hard to work out what is happening. I see my "strongly recommended" (the provision of links between alt accounts) has been watered down to "generally required": too vague, IMO. And worse, this has just been removed:

  1. Administrators discovered to be using a second account in an abusive or forbidden manner have been summarily desysopped.
  2. Candidates for adminship should normally disclose any past accounts they have used. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not merely an account. Administrators who failed to disclose past accounts have usually lost their administrator access.

I've asked User Sandstein whether it's possible to briefly summarise the direction changes to the policy have taken over the past month or so. Tony (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Phil, yes, thanks for clarifying that. On the "no need for sockpuppets", I think sockpuppets (improperly used alt accounts) are banned already; the problem arises in the slack rules for the operation of more than one account, and the temptation to misuse once you have an alt account. It's human nature, so I think we should move towards a much more restrictive policy on this (from one that was alarmingly permissive until recently). Misuse ranges from playing practical jokes to serious abuses of the consensus process (and the democratic process when it comes to RfAs and ArbCom elections). Am I on the right track? Tony (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
How about an RfC on the removal of one word? Tony (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Howard Staunton

Hi. As you well know, both of us have spent a lot of time on Howard Staunton in the past couple of years. Having again reviewed the article, I think that it is now reasonably balanced, and have decided to (very belatedly) accept my side of the Half Barnstar that SyG awarded to both of us last year. Thanks for your hard work. I'm glad that we were finally able to reach a consensus. Krakatoa (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa Photo

You give up on it, do you want me to redo it another way, add/remove anything? Hello? — raeky (talk | edits) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group, chapter 3

Hi there.

  • First of all, i am very grateful for the in-depth work you've done on this GA review, and it is underpinning significant improvements. I am toying with taking this through to FAC (which would be my first such attempt), and there's no way I would have been able to consider that without having you identify a wide range of issues, including in relation to the article structure.
  • Second, I had noted that a couple of people had dropped in and expressed views, one in response to my request that they look at the article (I actually hadn't asked them to look at the GAR - just the article itself, but they did anyway); and the other in response to your second opinion request. I've a lot of time for both you and Malleus, so I was pleased to see him drop in.
  • Third, I was wondering whether the bar was getting set pretty high, and had decided to stay away for a few days while things settled a little and so I could have a think about what I wanted to do :-)
  • Fourth, you are absolutely right about the need to explain better what MIS investments are, and how they work in relation to Great Southern Group. I still have some trouble udnerstanding aspects of them myself, hence my lack of recent writing on this subject; and I'm not entirely confident that the newspaper articles were getting all that side of things quite right. Anyway, I have now located some valuable new sources - my problem is getting the time to integrate them in - new text for a GA candidate is a bit different to ticking off articles at DYK! But I will apply myself to this ASAP and let you know when I'm done.

Once again, thank you for all your help. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • OK, I'm done with adding an explanation of MIS in general, and a partial restructure, moving more material into the "rise and fall" story, as well as a clean-up of the referencing. Can you check this out? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Euglena

I think you are a good person to ask about a small issue. I reverted some obvious nonsense at Euglena, but I see that the previous edit changed "Euglena can survive in only fresh water" to "...fresh and salt water". I'm concerned that my reversion of a later edit might make it appear that I checked the previous edit, and while I'm suspicious I have no idea. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the detailed reply with the interesting links; "fresh and salt water" seems very reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

Request opened by Moni3 here. --Moni3 (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please watchlist this page!

This is the new page for editors who are not my mentors/advisers to make editorial comments on: User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring/Editorial comments. Please watch list this page. However, I would prefer that dissatisfied editors contact a mentor/adviser individual, to prevent a battleground or attack mentality from developing on that page. Please let me know if you object to this. Thanks! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, I have to get out the door, and you're online ... do you have time to help Mattisse understand this and how Arb pages work? I don't have time to fix it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I just logged back in a little bit ago and saw that my post on Mattisse's talk page spiralled out of control. I had hoped that loosely following the examples that had been previously posted would help...thanks for at least trying to control it. I appreciate your help. Karanacs (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Graphic Lab

Hello Philcha, Bryozoan has gotten replies. Check it out and see if that's what you've been looking for. It is going to be archived soon and we don't want it to remain stale. Thanks, ZooFari 17:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philcha. You have new messages at ZooFari's talk page.
Message added 20:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ZooFari 20:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philcha. You have new messages at ZooFari's talk page.
Message added 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ZooFari 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A start on the ArbCom report

Here. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

GA

I can't see any problem in principle, there's no minimum length for GA (and this is a decent length anyway), and it's fully referenced. There are a couple of minor nitpicks (I wouldn't put crown in quotes, and the further reading is inconsistently formatted), but that's trivial stuff. I'm quite happy to review this when it gets to GAN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Insect suggestions

Thanks, but maybe you can help too, there are only some things that need work, it would be appreciated :) Bugboy52.4 | =-= 01:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Hey, thanks! the only sections that haven't been tackled are Sound production and hearing and Chemical communication. Thanks in advance! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

suggestions, I thought you were going to DO it :( ...lol it's alright. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, no problem , didn't know you were so busy! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog of stuff to do

Hi Philcha, I'm a bit backed up with stuff to do, on and off-wiki, so i will persist with Burgess Shale, just may not get there properly til Tuesday. Am shepherding my first FAC, Makinti Napanangka, at present. Briefly, my point about theoretical significance and cladistics is that, if as you say the main signif of cladistics was the impact it had on the BS, then it should not be a significant topic in hte section "Theoretical significance". The content under that heading should be confined to the theoertical significance of the BS fossils - the effects of those fossils on theory / theories (such as the Cambrian explosion etc). Anyway, I'll try a proposed revision in your sandbox as suggested sometime as soon as possible. cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Phineas and Ferb

Thanks! I'm hoping on bringing it up at FAC in a week or so. The Flash {talk} 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dan Povenmire first. I've still got some replacement refs I need to do on Phineas and Ferb to get rid of Amazon.com refs - from what I see, they don't fly on FAC. The Flash {talk} 17:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Alt. Account?

Hi Philcha, no biggy - but is this your alternative account, or should I look elsewhere? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Philcha, I'm sorry for making a un-evidenced accusation yesterday. Please see this by way of apology and explanation --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This is good to see; I have no reason to suspect Philca or any of the good-faith mentors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I have been accused of having a sockpuppet. See User talk:Mutual monarch. What do I do now? Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any investigation going on. —mattisse (Talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
SilkTork is looking into it. —mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brachiopod image

hi Philcha. Unfortunately i don't remember where I got the image from, it would have been quite a few years ago. It's not in any of my main invertebrate paleontology books here, so I haven't scanned it from anywhere (they each have very similar diagrams, but not the same). I must've found it on the web somewhere, but don't recall where, but someone's obviously be scanned from a book. Actually from memory it looks like a diagram from the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology volume on Brachiopods, but I don't have the volume in question so I can't be sure. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. M Alan Kazlev (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Burgess Shale

Yeah, i'm still here. sorry about that. i've been scratching my head about this final section but have also mainly just been busy w real life. So. I have now undertaken a revision at User:Philcha/Sandbox/Fossils of the Burgess Shale - Theoretical. This is the version that I think should replace the current "Theoretical significance" section, and you wil see I have split it into two separate sections. This is in part because all material about cladistics did not belong under the heading "theoretical signifiance" (hence my questioning at the GA talk page).

My new version lacks a crucial final sentence that I am not well-enough informed to write (Too long since I did my geology degree, alas). It should say something like "The interpretation of the Burgess Shale fossils thus contributed to the debate about punctuated equilibrium / explosion / continuity of evolution by [fill in the blank here in plain English]." The problem is that at present, there is a brief reference to the interpretation by Whittington et al "as evidence that all the living bilaterian phyla had appeared in the Early Cambrian", but you need to join these dots for the lay reader to how this means the BS fossils were positioned as evidence on which 'side' of the debate. Once that is done, these sections are ready to go across. Even without that sentence, I think my version of your revision is an improvement of the current approach in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 14 - In which Philcha is awarded a barnstar for having the backbone to work and animals which lack one...

The Bio-star
To Philcha, for attempting to address the bias that our invertebrate second-cousins are up against in being ignored in mainspace (and the image is of an invertebrate too) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse report

Would you please read over User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report and confirm (or otherwise) that you are content for this to be given as the requested report to ArbCom. SilkTork *YES! 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Report for ArbCom on M's mentoring

I'm happy with the current state of User:SilkTork/Report#Draft_Final_Report - but am not sure where I'm supposed to sign. --Philcha (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll create a space. SilkTork *YES! 21:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. SilkTork *YES! 21:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning

Please cease your attacks and intimidation of a good faith contributor. It is highly improper to take the side of an abusive admin who is refactoring comments made by another editor to misrepresent what they've said. This is absolutely unacceptable and needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Mollusca

Hello, Philcha! Thank you for offer but I have no time and desire to do this. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Small remark about Fossil record section

  • "Fossil gastropods, with their characteristic twisted shells, have been reported from "Latest Early Cambrian" rocks in Canada – unfortunately, it is impossible to give a numerical date for these rocks." You have forgotten about more early Purella, Anabarella, Pelagiella and others with twisted shells from the Nemakit-Daldynian, Tommotian,... These "Latest Early Cambrian" rocks is the uppermost Olenellus Zone that correlated into Toyonian Stage. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Krrish

Hi. I was wondering if I could count on your expert reviewing to relook at this article. This was promoted a few days ago to GA and I believe it should not have been and the problems are outstanding. Any chance you could re review it and if you find it not GA standard reassess it? I don't think it was given a proper assessment. Himalayan 11:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Himalayan 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Rejected

Hey, just wanting to drop a line re this GA review. Please let me know if there are any unresolved issues. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unanswered questions?

Hello, there is always not much participants in general discussions about gastropods. Feel free to let me to know on my talk page, if I have accidentally unanswered some of your questions or if you demand comment or opinion to something. Feel free to repeat your questions or repeat your question in different words, if I have unanswered something for a long time. I am open to your opinions suggestions and improvements. Feel free to use examples, it should be like this ... and it should not be like this .... Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am very sorry that I have accepted only very little part of your proposal. - I would like to point out, that you have no right neither to pause nor terminate GA review. I would consider it very unfair to concerned wikipedians. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cc

Hi, SilkTork, is the new process in operation or are we waiting from ArbCom's sign-off? If the new process is in operation, we should use M's recent comment to road-test it. --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
We should take the initiative in assisting Mattisse to edit on Wikipedia without drama and conflict. Which comment has she made that you are concerned about? SilkTork *YES! 10:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The Clarification post last night. It was not strictly an incident in the normal sense, but shows the impulsiveness that often creates incidents. I've agree elsewhere with your comments on that post. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I've just read your comment after mine on Mattisse's talkpage. We appear to be in agreement that if Mattisse makes a negative comment against another editor she should be blocked. I am prepared to do that. I would rather, though, that she use the Plan and consult with somebody if she is feeling stressed. SilkTork *YES! 10:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Having only now looked at the full page (after taking a day off), I see what upset her, but it will take me some time to prepare my response. That doesn't negate that she shouldn't respond when upset; in fact, provides an example of why she would have been better to wait, since I've just realized that viewing G guy's post in diff mode is very different from how it reads on the page ... had she waited a bit, the whole recent business could have been avoided. I'll clear that up with my next post-- need time to prepare it. I did make a mistake there (the result of viewing G guy's post only in diff mode, not understanding his formatting) ... give me some time to prepare my response before taking this further with Mattisse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
<grrrrr ... > And, since I just lost half an hour of work, I'm going to now switch to working my response in sandbox. <sigh> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I've now added my response, and struck some commentary from yesterday re: G guy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone

Thank you for your comments. I have no wish to enter into a protracted debate, as it detracts from a simple edit that you are unwilling to do. However, briefly;

"a style that is often associated with POV-pushers" - I wonder what possible POV you think I could be pushing by insisting that a UK circulated paper is referred to as such? It mystifies me.

"short, black-and-white, and unsupported with citations of their own." - I have provided a clear cite to the one example of The Guardian's UK circulation and identity. You discount it in preference to your own opinion and general cites about Scottish newspapers which have nothing to do with anything relevant.

"In fact nationality is a very complex subject" - it is indeed. But what has it got to do with reviews of a Harry Potter book? This is a question I keep asking you but you keep producing it as if it is has any relevancy.

"The fact that you demand citations from me while not presenting any yourself makes an impression that you have the right to judge."

I have the right to request that material is cited and accurate. This is "real work" and is just as important as other contributions. I have provided a cite that makes clear the inaccuracy of the statement I wished changed. You, on the other hand, have produced nothing except, as previously noted, personal opinion and irrelevant cites. The issue is the irrelevant and incorrect nationality of the identified papers like The Guardian. Scottish national identity and those of the papers have nothing to do with it unless you produce cites that explain why they matter to the reviews of this book.

"I was so concerned that I checked 3 pages' worth of your contribs" - I hope you feel your time wasn't wasted. But can we get back to the issue that is actually the root of the matter? I have proposed a compromise on the talk page --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems re: Tam,bourine Man GA

Hi Philcha! I've left a message about this on the GA talk page but I just wanted to send you a private message too. Unfortunately, my internet conection has gone down at home - which is where I do most of my Wiki stuff from. It should be up and running again by Tuesday or Wednesday next week at the latest, I would've thought. I will be checking in between now and then as often as I can but just be aware that I might not be able to respond to any comments that you or Rlendog leave on the GA talk page as quickly as I normally would. As I say, this should only last until early next week (hopefully) but I just wanted to give you the heads up. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Even the small

The Guidance Barnstar
I would like to thank you and Cliff smith talk for your help even though I didn't get around to your suggestions... i feel bad now :( But your small contributions helped, becuase it's the small contribs that add up in the end :P... have a good one Bugboy52.4 | =-= 02:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Democracy (Judge Dredd storyline)

Hi Philcha. Thanks for your constructive advice. I'll have a look for some sources of the kind you mentioned, but if you have time to find any yourself then that would be very helpful! I'm sure someone else will review it some day if you disqualify yourself. If you don't then I'll message you when I think I have done enough. Thanks. Richard75 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Richard75 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Fossils of the Burgess Shale

...has passed GA, only just beating the reviewer to becoming a fossil himself. Thanks for your effort and patience. i made one suggestion on the GA review talk page which i will leave you to look at, but it's merely in relation to a possible closing sentence. Keep up the good work. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


Mattisse

Hi Philcha, I have given Mattisse a warning not to post any form of comment on another Wikipedia editor without first getting advice to make such a comment. I have started a discussion on G guy's talk page. Your views are welcome and requested. SilkTork *YES! 09:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Classification sections & Taxonomy

Where does the classification section belong, near the top or near the bottom, and should it be called classification or taxonomy? One more thing, where should the subdivisions be, in the taxobox or in the classification/taxonomy section? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 03:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, a new approach I am willing to test out is what I did in insects: making a collapsible chart (if there is a lot of taxa) or non collapsible chart when the taxa are not as numerous, what you think? I was also thinking about improving all orders in insecta, and creating all families in insecta... thats my new goals on wikipedia (I choose Dermaptera as my first and that is the article in question) and what about the name of the article, should it be scientific or common? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 10:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You know what's funny... I was thinking to myself how Grylloblattaria seems related to earwigs but no refs to back it up, and then I was doing some more research and I found out I was right :P Oh, and one more thing, are dictionaries and encyclopedias reliable sources, even for the etymology section? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Review of the Megalodon article

Hello!

By now, I have fixed all pointed out issues that persisted in the main article and have updated the content within the article with latest sources. I would like to you to review the article in its present state for its GA status validation. Thank you. LeGenD (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A Great Hippocampus Question for you!

Once, on a GA talk page far away, you were kind enough to say that you were "fighting the temptation (probably losing) to insert it into Hippocampus, as another paleo editor and I have a running battle with the medics over their anthropocentrism" – the Great Hippocampus Question is now to hand, be my guest! . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Warcraft: Orcs and Humans GA

Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans/GA1 --Teancum (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please leave me out of your new GAN. I definitely made a bad judgement call by not giving the customary seven days, but putting me directly into your new nomination still feels like a personal attack. I would have talked more about the situation had I been given time, and again I'm sorry I didn't give you the obligatory wait time. --Teancum (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Re-nom'd in a day is unusual, and needs explanation. I provided the minimum explanation, with not emotive phrasing - not a a personal attack. You created 4 errors in the procedure:
  • As you admit, you didn't give you the obligatory wait time.
  • Your comments provided no explanations or examples.
  • You omitted to link the review to the Talk page when you started the review. See WP:GAN.
  • When I close a review, I close in the order: update the GA review page; update the Talk page (see WP:GAN); finally remove the nom from WP:GAN. That way if something distracted me no links are omitted. I admit the checklist WP:GAN remove the nom first, but I looked at this the first time I did a review, and concluded that the standard sequence could cause errors like this. --Philcha (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Warcraft: Orcs & Humans

The article Warcraft: Orcs & Humans you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Warcraft: Orcs & Humans for things needed to be addressed.


Just a friendly notice to let you know that the preliminary assessment is done. See the Addendum to the Introduction for a summary, also this discussion of intentions. Feel free to ask any questions, make any comments, and disagree with anything I said. Cheers! --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 10:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


(THIS COMMENT IS IN REPLY TO YOUR MESSAGE ON THE REVIEW PAGE)Thanks, I'll take keep that in mind next time I begin a review. I wasn't intending on writing a full review when I started that though. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: St. Boniface General Hospital (Winnipeg)

Re the verifiability concerns: yes, we should be good to go now. I've responded to most of your questions at the GA review page, and I'm looking forward to continuing to work with you on getting the article to GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've added some more independent sources, as well as a sentence about how patients are referred. Can you give me a couple of examples of where the text is not supported by the provided ref? Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
All opinions are now backed by independent sources; hospital-affiliated sources are used for factual information (patient numbers, etc). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

hi

Take a look at the history for that article, please. If I did anything so wrong it would have only required reverting to the stage before my first edit for the day. P0M (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what the problem was. I restored an exact copy of the "Symptoms of Spider bite" instructions, to fix what I thought was an erroneous deletion of a Wiki-link to "spider bites." It did not work. The brackets all matched up. Eventually, in trying to isolate the problem I ended up with unbalanced brackets, but the unbalancing fixed the immediate problem I had been working on. But the real problem, which I was too tired to see at 3 a.m. my time, was that the brackets were unbalanced in the previous Cheiracanthium illustration. I noticed that there were two illustrations not showing up despite looking o.k. in their own format, so I gave up for the night.
There is no need to have a wiki-link within the illustration title information because the section itself has the same link to the spider bites article. P0M (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lost confidence

Hi, I originally signed up to review your GAN Dragon's Egg, but I lost my confidence and removed my name. I don't feel that I can do an adequate job right now. Maybe in a while I will feel up to stuff. I am sorry. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, I sometimes need a break. I hope you'll be back on form soon. --Philcha (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I asked Wehwalt to take a look.[1] He says he will in the next few days. Hope that is ok, as he is a very good editor. All the best, —mattisse (Talk) 18:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very kind. --Philcha (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What?

No idea what you mean by this, "Sometimes ec have compensations, like IP69.226.103.13's recent comment - "What I'm interested in is improving coverage on scientist with widespread long-term notability in their fields for major contributions to a change in the dominant paradigm" sounds like trouble with WP:N..V. --Philcha (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)" There's nothing about this comment of mine that indicate an inherent non-neutral point of view. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I chose the first music topic

Hi, SilkTork. I look at Pink Floyd and for Mr. Tambourine Man, which has passed :-) But I could be punished for this, as Bix Beiderbecke looks likely to be real work. :-/ --Philcha (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

O yes, please take over Pink Floyd! I have very limited access time at the moment, and I don't wish to hold matters up by being unable to concentrate on what is required. I took on a whole bunch of GA articles just when my real life got very complicated. I have managed to deal with all the others, but Pink Floyd is still hanging on. You would be a life saver! Regards SilkTork *YES! 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bix Beiderbecke

Philcha, I'm sorry you found the Bix Beiderbecke article to be so much work. I posted a comment on the Review page, but I wanted to reiterate it here: First, thank you for your work in reviewing it. I appreciate the time it takes to provide feedback. But at this point, I'm not inclined to make further changes. I don't do this out of any stubborn unwillingness to accept criticism or out of a belief that the article is already perfect. Rather, I've found your comments to be difficult to understand and often garbled, and this is especially frustrating given the context -- i.e., you providing me writing advice. I say this not to be confrontational or difficult. I simply can't justify investing the time and energy necessary to respond.

Here is one case in point:

You write that "The parentheses are dishonest -- either you take responsibility their content and for the space they take in section." I don't know what you mean here. Either I take responsibility or ... what? And what does it mean that I am not taking responsibility for the parenthetical content? It's a clear sentence with a valid citation. For that matter, what does it mean for parentheses to be "dishonest"? You go on to write that if I keep the "item," I must lose the quotation because it is "florid." I disagree that its language is even remotely florid; regardless, that is not a justification for removing a quotation. If you had suggested that the quotation was unnecessary and then explained why, then I could have responded.

But your use of words like "dishonest" and "take responsibility" -- as in, my writing is and I do not -- doesn't amount to reasonable editing or helpful feedback. I imagine that the GA Review process has its share of prickly editors who resist any and all editing, and I hope that is not how I seem to you. As someone who has very much enjoyed working on this particular Wikipedia article, I would very much like to keep things congenial. Thank you again for your willingness to take on the review. Margo&Gladys (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Music Barnstar
For the excellent and thorough job you did reviewing the complicated but important Mr. Tambourine Man article, I award you this barnstar. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Flatworm

Glad to see you editing! —mattisse (Talk) 22:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot write or produce words and have pasted words found in other places. --Philcha (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Being ill

I hope you are feeling better. 07:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For you

The Special Barnstar
Philcha, for being who you are - totally irreplacable!

from —mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here

  • Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
  • Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
  • Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
  • "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
  • User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

Megalodon

Hello Philcha,

Wish a "Happy New year" to you. Some new queries and points about the Megalodon arose in recent times and I had to address them. I believe that the main article now covers most aspects appropriately. It is now a good time to review it for a GA pass. So what do you say?

LeGenD (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your condition. Hope you get well soon. Anyways! I saw your message in the GA reassessment section but the article link you provided leads to Godzilla vs. Megalon page and not the Megalodon page. Kindly correct this issue or a confusion may arise.
LeGenD (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse Alerts Page

I have created the alerts page with a simple placeholder. I was unsure on the format to be used and having queried with an arbitrator there is no simlar page to base it off and I was told that its probably down to the mentors to build the page. Ill be more than happy to lend a hand if you wish. Ping me if you do. Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 19:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Bix Again

Many thanks for your kind words and encouragement. Margo&Gladys (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey there. I noticed you were the one who nominated the Warcraft: Orcs & Humans article for its GA attempt. While the customary process is to put the article on hold for a week if it does not meet the criteria, it has been over a month since it was put on hold. I realize you want more time to get this article to better standards, but the increasing backlog has made it difficult to keep this entry on there. I notified the reviewer as well and remove it from the list for the time being. You may nominate it again at any time but the on hold has to be ended. Apologies, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that the reviewer makes the executive decisions on a GA attempt, and I was not attempting to undermine this process. I was simply trying to lower the massive backlog of the WP:GAN page. I realize that a week is a rule of thumb and there are certain circumstances which alter this rule, but a month of waiting time with no progress on the review page is much too long to leave on a very backlogged page. When I wrote that prose on the review page for Warcraft: Orcs & Humans, I was not reviewing it at all, I was simply leaving behind a few comments to aid the reviewer if he so chose. When writing full reviews, like this one I did recently, I section it up and am very thorough in my process. Anyways, I apologize for removing this GAN entry, but I do believe that this review should make some progress soon or it should be delisted. I will leave that decision to the reviewer though. Apologies and happy edits, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Dear Philcha, wishing you good health and happy holidays, and using this occasion to thank you for all the work you have done supporting Mattisse. --JN466 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Theatres

I can't find anything on Albert Mercier. Very strange. Thanks for doing the hooks. They look good, even the one for two deal on the double hook... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dragon's Egg

The article Dragon's Egg you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Dragon's Egg for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Philcha,

Thanks for all that you have done for me and for sticking by me in your mentoring/monitoring/adviser role. I'm deeply appreciative. Here's to a wonderful New Year for all of us and especially you. I hope you are feeling better. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you. (I'm glad to see that Dragon's Egg is getting the review it deserves.) Warmest regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mattisse, many thanks for your message. I hope 2010 is a good year for all of us - we all need a rest. I'm getting better, but it takes time - for example I can't see myself review at WP:GA for about 6 months. It's easier to suggest that others could relaxed - perhaps I need a few hints :-/ --Philcha (talk)
Actually, I feel the same way. I haven't gotten my nerve up to do any reviewing yet. I've tried a few times, but can't do it. I wonder if I ever will again. Maybe, like you, I need to wait 6 months. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

discussion of one of your actions

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Philcha. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion

Hi Philcha, Thanks, but I already use the text enlarging techniques. It is a question of formating for readability. I finally just reformated the section so that I could understand it. (Hope I didn't break a rule in doing so.) Hope you are doing well. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Jim Baxter statue Hill Of Beath.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jim Baxter statue Hill Of Beath.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. bjh21 (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philcha/Archive_7&oldid=1149969894"