User talk:Philcha/Archive 6

Phineas and Ferb
Hello. I've responded to the suggestions you've put on that page's GA review page. Come check them out, please. Thanks.  The Flash  {talk} 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the reference thing, and I've asked if you wish me to remove it. Please continue the review - I'm sorry I had to argue over it.  The Flash  {talk} 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you able to continue it? I'm going around now and removing/fixing refs linking to those e-mails.  The Flash  {talk} 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I'm still not sure what you mean by refs issues. That's why I wanted you to point them out as I go along, but alright. I'm still not sure what constitutes as a ref issue - do you mean unreliable? Because not even the WP:RS will tell me that when it comes to websites.  The Flash  {talk} 15:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you, that clears it up. But what about IMDb and TV.com? Because other than those everything I'm pretty sure is good, I just heard those weren't very reliable.  The Flash  {talk} 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, good, thanks.  The Flash  {talk} 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if all you wanted me to do is check and make sure every ref is reliable, then done. If you wanted me to make sure the article was perfect in every way, then I don't see why, as the point of the review is to get it fixed then pass judgment - i.e., give the article a chance, right? But, again, if the "ref issues" were just making sure every ref is reliable, then I'm done. Please tell me which and when you continue the review, please inform me of ref issues and such and don't just fail it, please. Thanks.  The Flash  {talk} 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I am sorry if I am bothering you.  The Flash  {talk} 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello? Could you give it another look through? I've added and fixed refs and expanded several stuff, plus got it a full and great copyedit. Thanks.  The Flash  {talk} 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for jumping in!
Philcha, thank you for your advice and although it may seem like I didn't follow it very well, it helped a great deal. It's reassuring to know that you are watching and willing to give your honest opinion. This is all a learning experience for me. After each event I gain a grant new insight. (Now for the first time, I actually understand baiting!) So, thank you. Your judgment is good. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuing the GA review
Hey. I've added more material to Phineas and Ferb, as well as removed any ambiguous references, had it copyedited, and some other tune ups. It would be great if you could pick up the review - if there are any ref issues, which I'm pretty sure there aren't, please tell me and they will be fixed ASAP. Thanks!  The Flash  {talk} 01:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I understand. That works for me, I'm currently working on getting other articles to GA status.  The Flash  {talk} 04:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Great Southern Group
OK, well I got backlogged with real life, and two GA reviews I'm doing, and some new entries I'm trying to write before the library books have to be returned and... give me a few more days before you have another look? Some progress has been made, but there's further to go. cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Would you be willing to have a look at this article again and, without necessarily doing the full GA review thing in detail, let me know if there are any particular areas that in your view clearly need more detail? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Marella200x155.png
This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

XFA proposal
Hi. It may interest you to note that I have added in an alternate way for the process to move forward that doesn't involve admins. Admittedly, it is reliant on the Tony1/AdminReview process being adopted by the community, but my sense is that will be adopted as a form of dispute resolution. And I suspect that even if it is not formally adopted by the community, it will be available nonetheless as an informal procedure, much like WP:MEDCAB. → ROUX   ₪  04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Just checking
Hey, it's been about a week, not trying to rush you or anything like that, but are you able to pick up the Phineas and Ferb review? Thanks if you can!  The Flash  {talk} 16:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks, and I'm sorry if I'm rushing you! I will attend to the issues ASAP.  The Flash  {talk} 14:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GA and FA
Re "Philcha would be better off at FAC/FAR. Not much point making a minority of GAs better than most FA" at User talk:Aaroncrick:
 * I'll assume that was meant as a compliment, and thank you.
 * WP:WIAGA is as insistent on WP:V as WP:WIAFA, and I just follow the rules. WP:V accounts for most of the time in my GA reviews.
 * When we disussed Jim Baxter I stated why I don't nominate for FA and seldom contribute to FA reviews: I actually disagree with large chunks of MOS. FA reviews also apply WP:RS over-literally. This works for academic subjects, although almost by accident. In other areas its assumption that certain types of management overhead confer reliability is false. E.g. in computer games the big-name mags have well-known weaknesses (tight deadlines; pressure fro advertisers) which often make them unreliable; some blogs are more reliable, but you have to know how to recognise them. --Philcha (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I had forgotten about that Baxter chat or that you were the writer. There's nothing stopping you from applying WP:V at FAC/FAR either, as they are supposed to apply to all articles. Do you think articles that are less V-compliant should be FAs ahead of GAs??? After all there is no requirement for you to do a full review, per Ealdgyth or the image checkers, for example. Oh I afree that some books can be less reliable than some blogs and that an attentive amateur could trump a lot of crappy mags/newspapers and even a certain best-selling non-fiction writer who averages 1 data error per page. Yes, it was a compliment.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Heads up re. Fertilisation of Orchids
Not sure if you've noticed, but Fertilisation of Orchids is up at FAC. . dave souza, talk 22:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch! Thanks for the useful pointers, initial response on my talk page. . dave souza, talk 11:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Trying out some ideas at User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids, found a few sources on Sprengel and chose one with a particularly useful account, hope my summary isn't too long. Still to format the reference properly. Any feedback on the talk page or in your sandbox will be great. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 18:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, at User talk:dave souza I've proposed steps to revise the article for the Fertilisation of Orchids - FA review issues, as shown at User:Dave souza/Sandbox/Fertilisation of Orchids. Hope this meets your concerns, as well as keeping the quality of writing and focus on Darwin's approach to experimental science. Any comments welcome. . dave souza, talk 17:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now implemented at Fertilisation of Orchids, and explained in brief outline at Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/archive1. Thanks for your help in bringing up these points, dave souza, talk 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the FAC comments, seemed to be a double post so I commented out the first one and added replies with proposed rewording to the second version. Thanks again, . .dave souza, talk 20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's me worn out for tonight, will return to it tomorrow. Thanks for the comments, dave souza, talk 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Thanks! What does ROFL :-) mean?

While I am here, what do you think of Fertilisation of Orchids? It has gotten to be too much for me. Too many quotations and detail of information. I feel like it has lost its focus, but then, this is not my area of expertise. If you have any comments, they would be appreciated. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Conception section
How at all? Everyone of those sources are extremely reliable - Animation World Network, Animation Magazine, Holywood Reporter, etc. What issues do you see, like, at all? If there was any section I'd figured you'd have issues with I'd never think it was any of those Origins sections...  The Flash  {talk} 15:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Misread you and checked out what you said on the GA page, never mind.  The Flash  {talk} 16:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Paddy Bradley GAN review
Might I politely suggest you fail this GAN as the nominator seems to have disappeared. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I missed that last edit - when I last looked it had been some time, see my comment on the GA review page. No criticism intended. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cavernous GA
Thanks once again for the time you're putting into the review. I will leave Dendodge to respond to the latest discussion. BTW I notice a chunk got duplicated by your last edit. I had made an edit comment shortly before. I thought to remove the duplicated part but wondered if it's intentional, perhaps to indicate that you were replying to my comment as originally worded, but otherwise you might want to delete it. PL290 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Orchids
I have struck my support of the article and have registered an oppose. Although I have an enormous number of edits to the article, I no longer can deal with the changes and do not agree with them. Perhaps you can take my place and continue with it, but I personally think it best  that it be withdrawn from FAC. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My aim was to try out the possibilities we were talking over, and run it past Mattisse before coming back to you. Did it rather clumsily, late at night, and evidently created misunderstandings as well as getting a clear view that the changes are unwelcome in principle. These proposals will not be implemented. They actually seemed to me to be pretty minor changes, largely to do with information added after the preferred edition, so that's something I can review in relation to that earlier version. Doubtless some editors would want to go further in making the article impersonal, my feeling is that Mattisse is right about the quality of the article and my own writing skills are rather limited. . dave souza, talk 10:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Philcha, surely you would support my withdrawing from a situation, rather than reaching the point of becoming openly angry as Malleus did when you requested seemingly endless changes in a GA review. I am not in a position, given the arbitration outcome, where I can afford to reach that level of frustration and anger. I have stated my views as strongly as I dare. If a "friendly disagreement" has become ugly for me, then would you not agree I should bow out?     Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Think I've tackled all your FAC comments now, any further comments welcome. Will add some comments based on Thompson to the start of the "Content" section, and that's about it unless the modification I've suggested to Mattisse meets with her approval. . dave souza, talk 14:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's me finished, I've made all the proposed changes and checked the article over. Hopefully I've not missed anything! . . dave souza, talk 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Halkieria
H. sacciformis, H. undulate, H. stenobasis,  H. meshkovae and H. longa are real species of Halkieria, and each of these species included several types of sclerites. H. sacciformis, H. undulate, H. stenobasis are the result of SSFs revision of the Meishucunian Stage (uppermost Nemakit-Daldynian, lower Tommotian, second part of Attabanian) in Yunnan Province, China. Yu.E. Demidenko, P. Yu. Parkhaev (2006) "Taxonomic diversity of the Early Cambrian small shelly fauna of the China." In: S.V. Rozhnov (ed.) "Evolution of the biosphere and biodiversity. Towards the 70th anniversary of A. Y. Rozanov". 2006. Moscow, pp. 492-505 (in Russian).

Little about Halkieria history http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app54/app20090026_acc.pdf Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Great Southern Group again
Hi there. Would you be wiling to take another glance at this article and give me further pointers on what would be needed for GA? Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Phylactolaemata
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Re: counting symbols in DYK hooks
I copy/paste into MSWord (Word gives all statistics, so as probably other text editors). There should be more "regular" WP tools, but I'm not that long with DYK assessment yet and thus I don't know them. However, I already can tell by eye when the hook is too long. I bet more experienced evaluators know it for sure without counting :-) Materialscientist (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Images
I've written a proposal here, which I'd appreciate your feedback on. Please note that I'm no expert on images, even though it's plain to me that we have a serious problem in the current MoS text. Tony  (talk)  16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Toot toot
I know you weren't kidding. And trust me that I'm not kidding when I say that I'll apologize when I feel the need, but it won't be because you expect me to "keep a civil tongue in [my] head". Talk about obeying the letter but not the spirit of a law... I'm not a politician, I don't have a reflex to apologize for every slight. I'm very sorry if a few punctuation marks and lines of prose vex you so. But it's not my problem and it's sure as anything not FAC's problem either. If you don't like FAC, don't go near it, 'nuff said. It's a big wiki. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What an unpleasent character you are! --Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. I'm not going to try and sway you with fake tears of apology :P -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope everything went smoothly!
Yeah that's great, I'm ready when your ready.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw you come back a few days ago but wanted to wait for you to shout out. Let's try and get things done as I'm going to Melbourne for 5 days on Wednesday morning next week.  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 06:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sponsorship naming rights ref has come back!  Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 07:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you please help me with the grammar in the structures and facilities section as that's all I have to fix.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything fixed? If so can we move on sir?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou, off topic but have you ever thought about helping out at FA/FAR?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well the GANs you review often end up better than old FA's. So I was just wondering. And yes it was a compliment! :) Anyway you could definitely help out with reviewing at FAC.

Just wait I'm a bit lost.. What do you mean by making "Events the first main section and incorporating the transport section and other location info there." So do you mean History shouldn't be the first section?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All other stadium articles seem to have history first. but oh well,  Aaroncrick   ( talk ) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Very offended :) Well ok I agree,  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 06:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Still, bit of an improvement from the first GAN! Can't believe it was even nominated..  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 02:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind helping with rearranging as you know exactly what you mean. I previously merged the transport section but was told it needed its own section. So I'll leave that how it is.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 02:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the changes fine?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 23:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep i'll be around. thx  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 22:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work reviewing the article! :) You've helped improve the article greatly, All the best,  Aaroncrick  ( talk )

Are we still going with the review? 06:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that all fixed now?  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 12:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Lower Cambrian
Hello, Philcha

A. Yu. Rozanov et al. (2008) "To the Problem of Stage Subdivision of the Lower Cambrian" Stratigraphy and Geological Correlation, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-19.

http://vendian.net76.net/lower_cambrian.htm While without figs. Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

U-Pb zircon dates for Lower Cambrian. http://vendian.net76.net/cambrian-dates.pdf Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Hi, I noticed you reverted my reduction of the plot summary in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I did this after a suggestion at the article's Good Article review. I understand the the shorter plot is not detailed, but as the article is, it is too plot heavy. If people wanted to read the details, they could actually go out and get the book :). Can we discuss the plot changes at the good article nomination talk page? I'm sure you want the article to be upgraded to GA status as much as I do! Thanks,  Malinaccier  ( talk ) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. The plot summary does have to support was is referenced later in the themes section. Really the only unaddressed comments from the review deal with the plot summary.   Malinaccier  ( talk ) 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

hope you notice
I didn't remove any paragraphs. Giano did. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 21:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think I would be starting trouble if I posted anything on the talk page. In other, similar instances, just posting on the talk page was enough to start trouble. Could you post it there if you think it needs to be there? Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress on Great Southern Group
Hi Philcha. I've asked User:Gillyweed to take a look through the article. They've started, but haven't finisehd yet, and are expecting to do so in the next couple of days. Perhaps at the end of the week would you be willing to look at my responses on the GA1 talk, and at the article, and see what you think? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

your q to sv
I linked your q on sv's talk, so she would not miss it. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Phylactolaemata

 * Which text did they end up using? I missed in on the main page, and don't see it in the archives. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I found it on the article talk page. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you wait a little?
I'm kind of busy right now with an RFC. Thanks, Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  14:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm in a bit of situation being accused of being a troll multiple times and then stating a RFC for the user. But it's on its way down hill. As in past it's peak, not as in it's going bad.  Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  15:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Lede request
Hey Philcha, I know how you love writing ledes.... fancy having a crack at History of the Burgess Shale? (-: Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  02:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

userpage

 * on my monitor at work, your userpage is seriously hosed. If you like, email me & I can send you an image capture. I'll look at it on my (larger) monitor at home later. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks ok on my MacBook, 1280 x 800 widescreen. The red dragon of Wikidraco scholasticus above the Cambrian Explosion Task Force makes me think of exploding Welshmen, but that's Adam Sedgwick's influence. dave souza, talk 12:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:GA review of Paddy Bradley
Hey Philcha,

I'm really sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Something came up, I had intended to log in and let you know but completly forgot. I'm really sorry for messing you about like that. I intend to wrap up much of the work on the article in the next 48 hours. Sorry once again. Derry Boi (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed a few things and left a couple of comments/questions beside a couple of oher things for you. Derry Boi (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry for the dealy, I'm still waiting on the GAA to reply to my email. I'll fix the other issue tomorrow. Derry Boi (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE FOUND PROOF!!!
Hello my name is George Drakopoulos,and i think i found living proof of ur research. I have found a stone that is identical to ur picture diagram,Liposome.png

Please contact me 4 further information. My email address is: grillwaterway@gmail.com

Thank u George DRakopoulos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.93.212 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

José Raúl Capablanca
Hi, Just saw your message on Krakatoa's userpage.

Guinness Bk 1996‎ by Peter Matthews, Norris McWhirter - Reference - 1996 - 774 pages Page 573 Fewest games lost by a world champion Jose Raul Capablanca (Cuba) lost only ... He was unbeaten from February 10, 1916 to March 21, 1924 (63 games) and was ..." I will have a quick look for the other citations. Best regards --Voorlandt (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look for the 63 unbeaten games on google books and found it there:

Capablanca's Best Chess Endings‎ - Page 164 by Irving Chernev, José Raúl Capablanca - Games - 1982 - 299 pages News of this upset had caused great excitement, and word was flashed to every corner of the world that the mighty Capablanca had lost a game—his first loss --Voorlandt (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the fact that his first loss was against Reti (you can preview the entire page 164 on google books ):


 * For the remaining two this book (second link) does seem to say something about it, but doesn't show enough. Perhaps somebody has a copy. Voorlandt (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa
Looks like you've been working very hard on that!! I would give you the usual caution about putting too much trust in a single molecular analysis, especially an early one ('the first') using a restricted set of genes which stands at odds to the fossil record. The Nielsen/Cavalier Smith argument is entirely semantic; there seems to be agreement that entoprocts and ectoprocts are both monophyletic groups (and can thus be termed phyla if it pleases you); assuming that ento-and-ectoprocta is a clade, there's no scientific rationale to clade naming - it could be called a phyla if you wanted, or a superphylum if one preferred. I wouldn't feel a disambig page is necessary - I would rename Bryozoa 'ectoprocta' (because that's what you deal with there) and mention in a footnote that "some authors use the term 'bryozoa' to refer to the clade 'entoprocta + ectoprocta' but this article uses the conventional definition".

HTH

Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that plan sounds good. Martin  (Smith609 – Talk)  21:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Halofolliculina corallasia proposal
Do you know anything about this subject, Halofolliculina corallasia? I started this article but it is rather over my head. I was hoping you would help me get it to DYK as a dual nomination by both of us. In general, I am very interested in coral but don't know what I am talking about! Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I'll post this one just to get a hook up there. What do you think?

... that Halofolliculina corallasia, a disease of stony coral that destroys the surface layer of the coral's limestone skeleton, is the first known coral disease caused by a protozoon and  an eukaryote?

197 characters. Not exactly an eye grabber. I've been looking for a references pointing out how environmentally devastating this has the potential of being. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "by a protozoon and an eukaryote" makes it looks like they ganged up on the coral. "... and also the first by an eukaryote"?
 * Halofolliculina corallasia isn't a disease, it's an organism that causes the disease, and the disease is Skeletal Eroding Band.
 * Overall the wording makes Skeletal Eroding Band the main subject.
 * How about "... that infestation by Halofolliculina corallasia forms Skeletal Eroding Band, the first known coral disease caused by a protozoon and by any eukaryote?" --Philcha (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This is correct version of mine, but I think I like yours better.

... that Halofolliculina corallasia (causing SEB, a disease of stony coral destroying the surface layer of the coral's skeleton) is the first known coral disease caused by  a protozoon and  an eukaryote?

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stick yours up there to get it in the queue. We can add alt hooks if we want. Too bad no pic. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sensible idea --Philcha (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I put it in queue, after the usual ordeal. For some reason, I always misunderstand the instructions and have to do it over! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Know what you mean. The worst part of passing a GA is the paperwork! --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Too bad there aren't any pictures. I wrote another little half-baked article Lorica (biology) because so many articles used it (wrong meaning) as a link. The articles in this section are not well off. I guess it is very specialized knowledge. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Picking back up the reivew...again
Hey - I've taken care of most everything you mentioned on the GA review for Phineas and Ferb, however I still have a few questions you never answered there. So it'd be great if you could un-pause the review. Thanks!  The Flash  {talk} 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for picking it up. And you can't expect me to have it perfect for the review, that's why you review it, to help it further.  The Flash  {talk} 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't say I didn't work, I worked very hard on this article and took that comment as offense. Forget I said anything, I get it, but in my opinion it was fine, now it's much better, but I'm biased. Now, forget I said anything, I shouldn't have, just thanks for reviewing.  The Flash  {talk} 18:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did that second pause thing a long time ago. I've fixed everything else, except for the podcast which I've repeated several times as to why there's no way to fix it and you seem to be taking it to heavily. I've actually been waiting for you to pick it back up, I assumed you were just busy.  The Flash  {talk} 17:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also going over the new issues :)  The Flash  {talk} 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Like last time I've been waiting for you to pick up the review. Everything is referenced to reliable sources (except for the IMDb ones I figured out I can completely remove and replace with better ones) and the only thing left is the podcast (your arch nemesis, lol :P ) which I suggested a way to find a medium. If you can pick it up would be great.  The Flash  {talk} 17:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I didn't know you put it on pause once more, actually, since you never said it or out "On hold" at WP:GAN :S  The Flash  {talk} 17:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but then you continued so I assumed you were picking back up the review. Nonetheless, I think it's ready to be picked up.  The Flash  {talk} 18:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

alert
Can you think of a way of saving our article Halofolliculina corallasia from the threatened merge? The mistake I think was on concentrating to much on SEB, rather than on the protozoa itself. May not be possible to save it. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not put the merge banner on Skeletal Eroding Band . Wetman did. So I don't think I should unilaterally remove it. I did comment on the discussion page. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 13:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the merge problems, the hook is no longer good and I do not see another sourced hook in the article. Do you see one? &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered on my talk page. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've looked at your alt hook and I think it is a winner. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "However, the relationship between the presence of ciliates and coral mortality has not yet been firmly established."A mechanism of transmission and factors affecting coral susceptibility to Halofolliculina sp. infection  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, can't a guy get some dinner? :-)
 * No problem about "However, the relationship between the presence of ciliates and coral mortality has not yet been firmly established"(A mechanism of transmission and factors affecting coral susceptibility to Halofolliculina sp. infection.) The sentence refers to the Caribbean infections which, until this paper, did not have a known agent (a previous paper dated 2006 w same team but different lead author found the symptoms, it's in Talk:Halofolliculina corallasia). The 2008 fingers a new species of the same genus fo rthe Caribbean cases. They, the world and his wife agree H. corallasia is the culprit in the Indo-Pacific. --Philcha (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wetman put the merge tag on. See &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wetman put the merge tag on. See &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wetman answered you on his talk page. I believe that I have already entered the discussion not to merge on the article talk page. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 18:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check Wetman's talk page --Philcha (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lonely Planet Cambodia
Re "hairy prawns that walk on land" - maybe, and it's true that insects and crustaceans form a valid clade within Arthropoda - but is "Lonely Planet Cambodia" a reliable source? In my experience, it's common for pop-culture sources to state that some very questionable food source is "considered a delicacy" (compared to what, rotting meat, or only rice?) when really it is just eaten for lack of anything better. I would like to see a scholarly source backing up this claim.24.22.141.252 (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

From my user talk, as you may not have it watchlisted: It would help if you identify the page about which you have a concern. --Philcha (talk) 11:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is Arthropod. This hardly looks like the kind of site upon which we should rely for ethnographic claims, especially on such a high-profile article, and a google search for the terms turns up nothing from that site. You wrote in your summary "sources say its a delicacy" - to what sources were you referring? Mind you, I have no knowledge that they are not considered a delicacy in Cambodia, but would only like to see this surprising claim backed up by a reliable source.24.22.141.252 (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't be bothered to identify yourself, why should I pay any attention to you? Stand up and be counted, or stop sniping from the shadows.
 * See the latest change.
 * I found further sources using Google. You could have done the same. Why didn't you?
 * Congratulations, you've wasted 30 mins of my time when I'd rather have been working on a another article. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did the right thing to begin with by changing "considered a delicacy" to merely "eaten." Thank you for these additional sources, which describe the situation in greater detail. Neither claims that tarantulas are considered a delicacy in Cambodia. Instead, they state that the spiders were first eaten (as I'd surmised) during starvation under the Khmer Rouge, and that subsequently, Cambodians happily stopped eating them except in Skuon. Thanks to your new sources, we can make the appropriate changes. If you feel that finding and reading them is a waste of time, there is always the option of declining to revert the correction of poorly-sourced (and as we now see, wrongly characterized) material.24.22.141.252 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Philcha, why on earth are you edit-warring? These sources do not say anything to the effect that "tarantulas are considered a delicacy in Cambodia."
 * "“Over a spider, Kong explained that the people of Skuon had long used the local tarantulas in traditional medicine; they were thought to be good for the heart, throat and lungs. The practice of using them as a foodstuff started in the years of terror under the Khmer Rouge. Across Cambodia starvation was rife and people ate anything they could get their hands on, including insects. When Pol Pot's murderous regime came to an end, most Cambodians were happy to stop eating bugs, but the Skuonese decided that they'd developed rather a taste for the local tarantulas."24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not edit-warring, you are. One of the sources I added is explicit. If you cannot find a source that opposes this, it's over. --Philcha (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Philcha, I read both linked articles in full, and see nothing to this effect. Please provide a quote. Additionally, I found the 2008 edition of Lonely Planet Cambodia on google books - it likewise specifies (p. 283) that 1) the spiders are eaten in Skuon and 2) does not state that they are considered a delicacy.24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I found the quote, from the opening of the ABC news article "First unearthed by starving Cambodians in the dark days of the Khmer Rouge "killing fields" rule, Skuon's spiders have transformed from the vital sustenance of desperate refugees into a choice national delicacy." I think this contradicts the rest of the article, as well as the others, and is almost certainly untrue, but you're right, it's there.24.22.141.252 (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Halofolliculina corallasia

 * Somehow I don't feel like bothering to check the hits on this one! My last one Okeanos Explorer got 8.4k hits on the one day. None after. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The bot screwed up; your hook will actually appear in about 5 hours. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  04:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Miss Meyers
Feel free to post any concerns about Miss Meyers over on the talk page of the article. The lead section is certainly in line with the shortness of the article (The article is only about 600 words). The pedigree chart is actually a set format for wikipedia (same as that used for humans) and is indeed the convention. Stakes race is linked earlier in the article (or should be). And it is indeed broad in its coverage as it covers all aspects of a race horse's life. Background, racing life, breeding career, and any honors gained. She lived a very short life, so there isn't a lot of padding possible with regards to discussing her breeding career. She didn't take part in any controversies, or such like. I could repeat the whole pedigree chart in the "early life" section, but surely that's a bit of overkill (and would really make the prose choppy "Her maternal grandsire was blah who was sired by blah and out of blah by blah. Maternal granddam was blahette by blah out of blahette two."? I'll throw a citation on the pedigree, it's an oversight. I don't watchlist GAN, it swamps my watchlist and makes me miss out on important edits to articles, so I had no idea the article was still being discussed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Chamber of Secrets
You say that the lead "summarizes the text" which has citation. Where in the article does it mention anywhere that "Commentators noted that personal identity is a strong theme..."? What reference mentions that? Or is someone paraphrasing an actual source and offering their opinion on what commentators have noted? And can you point me to a GA article on a book that includes so much in the lead paragraph? Take a look at The Grapes of Wrath or War and Peace. Even The Lord of the Rings mentions that many critical and analytical works have been written about it, but the lead does not contain details about what those criticisms were. That's the way a lead in an article should be written. Ccrashh (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Response
If you wish to discuss this with my then you are welcome to bring it up on my talk page. I am not in the habit of discussing my behavior with users on a third parties user talk page, particularly while they are blocked. In short I think you have drastically misinterpreted things. Chillum 15:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

earwig
I added some about the predators on the earwig article, could you look that over again? Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  05:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just meant what I added. Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  06:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

desysop
Is at WP:RFDA. → ROUX   ₪  14:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What links here
Hiya, seeing as you're one of the few editors to have contributed to the relevant talk page, may I hassle you with this question? I may have overlooked something, but it looks like there are technical limitations to this wiki-function. Regards, Cavila (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC).
 * Never mind, the limitations are confirmed and any proposal for a modification of the software will probably have to made to Bugzilla. Cavila (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD length
You may wish to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you responded in other. My current proposal, as you suggest is correct, is flexible. See the tail end of the discussion before the call for opinions and see my support statement.  I think you mean to support the type of flexible statement I am propounding.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Monitoring page
If you could watchlist User:Mattisse/Monitoring' you could help me in dealing with future problems. I hope not to disappoint you again. Thanks! — Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

York Park
At FAC.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Issue with Mattisse
This issue with Mattisse is that she's been lobbying to for Giano to remain blocked. In light of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse, that's a poor idea. Hope that is a sufficient explanation for the basis of my concern. Please feel free to address my concerns by adding information. Jehochman Talk 15:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See where Mattisse commented at least three times.


 * In context of the entire thread I don't think my comments were out of line. I believe I have a right to properly express my opinion. Please see my reply at User:Mattisse/Monitoring Regards, — Mattisse  (Talk) 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is at best unseemly for you to be so vociferous in supporting the block of an editor against whom you hold such a public grudge. What is it that you hope to achieve by this stand? That Giano's block is not shortened or lifted? There is no spin that presents you in a good light Mattisse. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope fervently that in the future those who nominate an article at FAR in good faith will not be personally attacked and a scene created as happened here and has happened so many times before over the same issue. This is a repeated scenario.I said that I had no opinion on the length of the block and I do not. Please do not misrepresent my words. Regards, — Mattisse  (Talk) 16:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good start would be for you not to misrepresent the words of others. Where in what I said above did I say that you had an opinion on the length of the block? You are vociferously supporting the block of someone with whom you have very publicly disagreed. Are you unable to see how some will choose to interpret that apparent conflict of interest, whether rightly or wrongly? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisit to Megalodon
Hello Philcha,

I have thoroughly reviewed the Megalodon article and added many new and good references in it. The content within many sections of the article has been vastly improved. Kindly re-evaluate the article to check that whether it has now become good enough for GA criteria in your perception or not, and leave updated remarks on the Talk page of the Megalodon. Thank you.

LeGenD (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Phineas and Ferb & podcast
Yes, thanks for reminding me, I will attend to that today. If you read a bit above that section you'll see what I'm actually suggesting to do. It's seriously impossible to get an exact time, I don't know how many times I can say that, but I figured saying "Beginning," "Middle," and "End" would work, no?  The Flash  {talk} 15:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You got it! After that do you think the article is able to passed? Cheers,  The Flash  {talk} 19:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, do you mean you want me to put it down to ten usages? If so, I don't know if that can actually work for most of them. Yes, there's a lot, but not all, ya know?  The Flash  {talk} 22:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tenths? What? Haven't you been understanding everything I've been saying for so long? This is the best way I could get it, and now you're not even happy with that? What do you mean by tenths? There's no percent and nothing at all, why don't you believe me?  The Flash  {talk} 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try getting back on this as soon as I can - I have just gotten back access to the internet, which I did not have for several weeks, and am also busy with several things. I'll be sure to get to it as soon as I can.  The Flash  {talk} 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the review page.  The Flash  {talk} 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done! Every instance of the podcast has been removed. It took a lot shorter than last time as I removed a lot last month. I think it's finally ready! :P  The Flash  {talk} 22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I didn't complain - I said I agreed with the user that it's going on for a long time, and after this while it feels like it's been to long.  The Flash  {talk} 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me complaining. That was me commenting that I have grown irritated with the length of the review, but that's it - I never said I want it to end or anything, I was just saying that the length also was bothering me, not that the article didn't deserve it. Do you see what I'm getting at?  The Flash  {talk} 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All the awards mentioned in the lead are in the awards section. Which one are you talking about?  The Flash  {talk} 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a picture gallery and why is it a "mistake"? The Simpsons uses the same thing and it's an FA.  The Flash  {talk} 20:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa, Ectoprocta
Hi, I've reversed the renaming of Bryozoa to Ectoprocta as the move has been contested. If the current discussion on Talk:Bryozoa is resolved and a renaming becomes warranted, I'll gladly move it back. Meantime, and before all those incoming links (300 +) get changed, the article should remain at bryozoa. Vsmith (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop
Updated the image. — raeky ( talk 08:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)