User talk:Mattisse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Contents |
[edit] Smile
Viriditas (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
[edit] In-Universe
Of course the plot section is written in an "in-universe" format, it's the plot description. Unless you write like, "In scene X, Clark does blah blah blah", then it's always in IU format. Go to any film or television article and they will all be the same. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you do not understand the meaning. Somewhere in the article you have to analyze the plot and put things in perspective. Click on what "in universe" meaning on the template and perhaps you will get it. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Um, no. The plot section is precisely that, a plot section. The vast majority of film/television related articles do not interlace real world information with the in-universe information that describes that events that transpire in the episode/film. Check any film article, or any episode article. In fact, the only episode article that does do such a thing, that I'm aware of, is the one that I wrote personally (Pilot (Smallville)). I think you need to read WP:WAF's description of IU information and how it can be used inappropriately. A plot description that clearly identifies the episode it takes place in, does not contain original research, and does not go into obscene details is not a violation of any guideline on IU tone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Um, somewhere in the article you must give a clear eyed, objective view of the plot. Please read what the template says:
- Um, somewhere in the article you must give a clear eyed, objective view of the plot. Please read what the template says:
- Um, no. The plot section is precisely that, a plot section. The vast majority of film/television related articles do not interlace real world information with the in-universe information that describes that events that transpire in the episode/film. Check any film article, or any episode article. In fact, the only episode article that does do such a thing, that I'm aware of, is the one that I wrote personally (Pilot (Smallville)). I think you need to read WP:WAF's description of IU information and how it can be used inappropriately. A plot description that clearly identifies the episode it takes place in, does not contain original research, and does not go into obscene details is not a violation of any guideline on IU tone. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This article or section describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style. Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective. |
-
-
-
- If you believe there is original research in the section, please point it out, otherwise it is an "objective view of the plot". I don't need to read the template, I've been writing for fictional articles for quite some time now, and gotten plenty to featured status; I think I know what I'm doing. It says, "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." -- There's nothing real world omitted from the section. The article itself might be lacking some real world information, but that isn't an IU issue that's a WP:PLOT issue. There is a difference. Even then, I already have the real world information for that article, and the rest of them, I'm just a little too busy right not to clean it up and put it in. It's the same format as Smallville (season 1), and every other film article that is featured. If you read the "Problems with IU" section, the only thing that deals with plots is -- "A plot synopsis written like an historical account." -- For that to happen the plot descriptions would need to be written in past tense. The only time past tense is used is when it is appropriate, which is a rare case. If you think there could still be some tweaking of the words to better present the info in present tense, cool, but adding OOU info into the plot is generally not done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- To write an article or section in a primarily IU style then I would have to incorporate every episode into one large section, as if it was a history lesson. Fortunately, each description is separated by when the episode airs. You clearly see that in "Episode X" these events occur. If you disagree, please feel free to take it up on the talk page of WP:WAF, because I'm sure others would love to get in on the convo. Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- If you believe there is original research in the section, please point it out, otherwise it is an "objective view of the plot". I don't need to read the template, I've been writing for fictional articles for quite some time now, and gotten plenty to featured status; I think I know what I'm doing. It says, "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." -- There's nothing real world omitted from the section. The article itself might be lacking some real world information, but that isn't an IU issue that's a WP:PLOT issue. There is a difference. Even then, I already have the real world information for that article, and the rest of them, I'm just a little too busy right not to clean it up and put it in. It's the same format as Smallville (season 1), and every other film article that is featured. If you read the "Problems with IU" section, the only thing that deals with plots is -- "A plot synopsis written like an historical account." -- For that to happen the plot descriptions would need to be written in past tense. The only time past tense is used is when it is appropriate, which is a rare case. If you think there could still be some tweaking of the words to better present the info in present tense, cool, but adding OOU info into the plot is generally not done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- In simple terms, you cannot WikiLawyer the idea behind not writing in an IU tone. That is what you are doing, and that is the point you are missing. There is a difference between an article that writes in an IU tone (trust me, I can show you plenty ...here's one for example) and a page that just happens to have primarily plot information. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No. Original research is not the issue. But somewhere you should give a realistic view versus the fictional view of the piece or episode you are describing. The objective view could be in one big piece to give perspective on the individual episodes you are describing. The point is to somewhere separate reality from fiction. You present the episodes as if they are reality with no counterbalance. But I do not care enough to continue this conversation further. Eventually it will be caught by someone, if you do not do the right thing now. This is at an end. –Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Like I said, take it up at WAF if you disagree (which you clearly do). Please do not get all uptight about it and say, "I don't care enough", because you obviously did when you placed the tag on the page. If you don't wish to go to WAF and get a real consensus on the issue, that's your problem, not mine. Either way, I hope you have a pleasant evening (morning if that's the case). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Sorry
(copied over from my talk page:) Mattisse, thanks for this, but really neither you nor anyone else need apologize for opposing this article (or indeed, any other) at FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rongorongo
Why you changed the image size? [1] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- I feel like the article is going to be penalized in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rongorongo because of things like the image size and the method of citations when the article is actually very good. You can change the image back if you don't like it. I did that as an experiement. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Grove Press, Inc., v. Gerstein
I just saw that Grove Press, Inc., v. Gerstein was a red link and thought this might interest you. It would make a very interesting DYK. More about it here. The supporting source in that article is: Hutchison, Earl R. Tropic of Cancer on Trial: A Case History of Censorship. New York: Grove Press, 1968. Viriditas (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for thinking of that for me. I looked it up and, unfortunately, it is only of those cases that Google can find nothing about except mere mentions regarding the opinion in other cases. Thanks for thinking of me! –Mattisse (Talk) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I just found another source: Rembar, Charles. The End of Obscenity: The Trials of Lady Chatterley, Tropic of Cancer, and Fanny Hill. New York: Random House, 1968. It looks interesting so I'll keep one eye open in case I find you something. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- FYI...there's a lot online, here. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Forget everything I said above. The real article is Charles Rembar - and it's a stub! :) Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Lady Chatterley's Lover and D.H. Lawrence to Henry Miller and Tropic of Cancer to Lenny Bruce and his nightclub performances to Joe Redner and his strip clubs, etc. The lawyers in involved in these cases tend to have a low profile. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not this guy. I've found pages and pages about Rembar on google books. He seems to be quite famous, actually. Viriditas (talk)
- What I am interested in is the legal reasoning involved in the court decisions. I will check out the books on Rembar. Why are you not writing an article on him? –Mattisse (Talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not this guy. I've found pages and pages about Rembar on google books. He seems to be quite famous, actually. Viriditas (talk)
- Lady Chatterley's Lover and D.H. Lawrence to Henry Miller and Tropic of Cancer to Lenny Bruce and his nightclub performances to Joe Redner and his strip clubs, etc. The lawyers in involved in these cases tend to have a low profile. –Mattisse (Talk) 14:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Forget everything I said above. The real article is Charles Rembar - and it's a stub! :) Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- FYI...there's a lot online, here. Viriditas (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I just found another source: Rembar, Charles. The End of Obscenity: The Trials of Lady Chatterley, Tropic of Cancer, and Fanny Hill. New York: Random House, 1968. It looks interesting so I'll keep one eye open in case I find you something. Viriditas (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eric Brewer (ice hockey)
Hi! The copyediting that you've done is great, and if you would be willing to continue that would be excellent. This is my first FA nomination so I know it won't be at the highest level possible, and any help to get it there is much appreciated. In response to a few of your concerns, I will remove a few wikilinks. I know right now I have a few pages linked more than once, so I can at least limit the linking to one time only for the most part. For the Charitable contributions section, how would you suggest I merge it into the Personal Life heading? Should I include it as a separate paragraph, or do I add it into the prose of the personal life section? Lastly, you said "P.S. What happened at the end of his career that he did not suit up for three years? What is the state of his career now? I am not quite clear." I'm not quite clear on this statement. He is still an active player, so somewhere I must have led on that he is retired? Could you let me know the area of the article that hinted at this? Thanks for the comments! – Nurmsook! (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you need to sum up his career somehow. I don't know how, but the ending to an FAC is important. Perhaps some sort of summary statement about his place in hockey overall. It sounds like no matter what he does from now on, because of his accomplishments so far he has left his mark as a player. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Epbr13
User:Epbr123 did not add the IMDB reference for the name of Eric Brewer. The diff of his only contribution to the article is here. Note, all he did was change "New York Times" to "The New York Times" in one of the references. Trebor (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am confused about the diffs. Are you saying I was wrong on both diffs? That is certainly not the way it seemed at the time when he did his drive-by edits in the middle of our FAC edits. I appologize for any incompetency on my part in understanding diffs. Drive-by edits are confusing and disruptive. I admit I do not have a firm grasp of the technology of Wikipedia. I am an editor and a copy editor only. However, I think I will stay away from FACs after my current commitment ends. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, Epbr made two edits. His edit to Eric Brewer (ice hockey) was [2] which changed "New York Times" to "The New York Times". Later, someone removed the IMDB reference for Brewer's name, but this was not anything to do with Epbr's edit. His edit to RongoRongo was this, which was making changes related to WP:MOSNUM - the style guideline for dates and numbers. Per that guideline, adding a wikilink to "October 11" was definitely correct and changing "twenty-six" to 26 isn't incorrect (the guideline says either is okay). So neither of his edits did anything wrong. Trebor (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- O.K. I do apologize genuinely. Although the second edit relating to WP:MOSNUM you say can be either way, it actually is incorrect according to normal standards of English. The edits looked to me at the time, when examined by me just after his edit and going by what was highlighted in red (which apparently is not the way to tell) incorrect. Therefore, I do not know how to tell what edit is what and will probably cease editing FAC's after my current commitment ends. I apparently cannot deal with drive-by edits. Sorry for any disturbance I created. I am adamantly against the type of drive-by edits the nominee engages in on FACs. People like me cannot deal with such superficial involvement in articles. Perhaps it is the "new" generation taking over which will drive editors like me, who do not want to be an admin, away after closing in on 50,000 edits. It is the way of the world. The only way I can survive here is by occasionally voicing my opinion as it is clear my time is coming to a close. It is also clear the nominee will pass anyway, so my voice is irrelevant. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't like to think of you being driven away from anything - we need as many talented editors as we can get. The "drive-by" edits are normally minor fixes of manual of style issues, and are intended to make only a small improvement to the article. And while those are improvements, we obviously also need people like yourself who want to write content for articles and make more thoughtful suggestions about changes. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask :) Trebor (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- O.K. I do apologize genuinely. Although the second edit relating to WP:MOSNUM you say can be either way, it actually is incorrect according to normal standards of English. The edits looked to me at the time, when examined by me just after his edit and going by what was highlighted in red (which apparently is not the way to tell) incorrect. Therefore, I do not know how to tell what edit is what and will probably cease editing FAC's after my current commitment ends. I apparently cannot deal with drive-by edits. Sorry for any disturbance I created. I am adamantly against the type of drive-by edits the nominee engages in on FACs. People like me cannot deal with such superficial involvement in articles. Perhaps it is the "new" generation taking over which will drive editors like me, who do not want to be an admin, away after closing in on 50,000 edits. It is the way of the world. The only way I can survive here is by occasionally voicing my opinion as it is clear my time is coming to a close. It is also clear the nominee will pass anyway, so my voice is irrelevant. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, Epbr made two edits. His edit to Eric Brewer (ice hockey) was [2] which changed "New York Times" to "The New York Times". Later, someone removed the IMDB reference for Brewer's name, but this was not anything to do with Epbr's edit. His edit to RongoRongo was this, which was making changes related to WP:MOSNUM - the style guideline for dates and numbers. Per that guideline, adding a wikilink to "October 11" was definitely correct and changing "twenty-six" to 26 isn't incorrect (the guideline says either is okay). So neither of his edits did anything wrong. Trebor (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] aspect
Hi Mattisse,
Thanks for your improvements of rongorongo.
Just one comment for future reference, since it looks like you make the occasional edit elsewhere: You can say "had been collected in the late nineteenth century", but "have been" means it is currently relevant, and so is incompatible with a past date. kwami (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I don't understand all of Tony's comments about the article. Also, I don't understand parts of the article, so I appreciate any feedback from you. –Mattisse (Talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: –
Thanks for the heads up, I also thought that adding the endash symbol itself was better than the whole endash script as one would think it saves bandwidth...Guess it's one of those things you learn in your first FAC! Thanks again and sorry for the mix up. – Nurmsook! (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:NPA
I have been exceedingly patient with you throughout months of attacks on my talk page; please stop. You are no longer welcome on my talk page, and further attacks will be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hello Mattisse
Mattisse, How are you? I was worried when I stopped receiving your email. I thought things got worse! Write to me about your conditions.Shoovrow (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am just now getting better after weeks of antibiotics. How are you? By the way, thank you for your words as they were most helpful in understanding what was going on. On another subject, I was wondering if I could play "devil's advocate" to some of the thoughts in your writing. –Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I am always willing to accept any supportive act from you. I trust you. Could you please highlight first how you plan to do such? Is it some interaction in between the two of us or something else? Good to see you recovering!!Shoovrow (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I was thinking of asking you some questions about your adjustment hypotheses. However, if you have gmail, it is possible to "chat" via real time text with that. Other than that, I am not very sophisticated about internet communication. It is just that I have been thinking about your hypotheses a lot and there are certain roadblocks that I run up against in my mind, even though I basically agree with you. –Mattisse (Talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- I am always willing to accept any supportive act from you. I trust you. Could you please highlight first how you plan to do such? Is it some interaction in between the two of us or something else? Good to see you recovering!!Shoovrow (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That would be just excellent! But, could it be e-mail in place of instant chat? I have very little scope of continuous internet connection. Actually, I check my e-mail 2 to 3 times a day. Let me know. I will be very glad if we can come to some discussion on the hypotheses!Shoovrow (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Email would be just fine. I must admit I forget to check it for periods, but I will make an effort to be more consistent about that. –Mattisse (Talk)
-
-
-
[edit] Manhunt
I've moved the BLP issue you raised back to WP:BLP/N and rather belatedly replied. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! –Mattisse (Talk) 19:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] UNSC Resolution 304
Howdy, you taged an article of mine as unsourced but if you check the bottom there is a link to the text of the resolution at wikisource. Mind if I take the tag off? - Schrandit (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)