User talk:Mattisse

Welcome to Wikinews

Getting started as a contributor How to write an article Pick something current? Use two independent sources? Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask? Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template. [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally. As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems. Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation   Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.

All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours. Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere. The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing. Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies Neutral point of view Cite sources Writing an article Content guide Style guide Reviewing articles

Places to go, people to meet Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion. There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved The Water Cooler The Latest News The Newsroom Articles for deletion Audio Wikinews Recent Changes

Write your first article for Wikinews! Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it! It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.

Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Mattisse (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Guatemalan football executive shot dead after team meeting

No worries, just thought I would change it back. Cheers Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your interaction at Pi Zero's talk page

You are advised that you should keep your interactions with other Wikinews editors and staff civil at all times, and avoid any wide ranging statements. Pi Zero has been with Wikinews for a considerable time, and your comments about him being unaware of the wider aspects of article writing are unpleasant to say the least. Please be warned that if you make comments in this manner again towards any editor, you may be blocked from editing or contributing. Consider this a warning shot, the next will not be a warning. BarkingFish (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ok. I will redact the comment that you object to. Please understand I have had a most frustrating experience with him. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, Mattisse. I understand your frustration, but there are better ways of talking things over. You're welcome to speak with any of us, and we will try and help you in any way possible. BarkingFish (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a "Mind your own business" policy here, the way there is on Wikipedia, but I'd like to add that I understand Matisse's frustrations. I'm still relatively new here and dealing with some of the senior editors can be exasperating to say the least. However, there is a method to the madness. The first three articles I wrote for WN were not published, simply because I hadn't gotten the hang of writing articles with the kind of rigor that is needed for WN. My advice to Matisse would be to start off writing articles of lesser international importance, such as Voodoo sex ritual leaves woman dead, and then move on to other, more lengthy, and I daresay more important stories, such as Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden. Good luck, and don't forget to never take anything personally on Wikinews. --Ashershow1_talk 18:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I doubt that I will write any more articles here. I believe I am fully capable of the "rigor" needed as I write sourced articles for a living, but the reviewer of my last article said that reviewers will avoid reviewing articles with more than three sources. So I can't write about anything that interests me. I want to write more ambitious articles that those accepted here. I don't think engaging writing is incompatible with rigorously sourced writing. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden was not a good article, from my point of view. It gave no context and merely reiterated the three carbon copy sources it used (which anyone with Internet or media access already knew). And Voodoo sex ritual leaves woman dead badly needs copy editing; the reader has to go to the sources to get the picture of what really happened. The sources were so much better than the article. Thank you again for taking the time to leave me a note. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews is a wiki

As I'm sure you are aware, Wikinews is a wiki. This means that you can edit, in this case, any story in development, or that is recently published. You appear to be spending a lot of time recently making criticism of other users' articles. Although healthy criticism is, of course, vital in a newsroom environment, you are reminded that — and encouraged to — you are able to edit any page in order to resolve anything you find misleading, incorrect, or otherwise inappropriate, from the article, instead of using the talk page. Please note that constantly criticising articles without making any attempt to correct them may be viewed as project disruption. — μ 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I have lost all confidence in actually editing articles on this site. I thought the "collaboration" page was the way to do it. There are time limits and rules that I violate because I am not familiar with the site. I find it difficult as a newcomer to figure out the rules. When I did edit a published article, it was reverted because of a rule about editing published articles. (See above.) Nearly everything I have done has been wrong so far, so I will refrain from any more attempts to help or contribute for fear of being disruptive. Mattisse (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to take constructive criticism very personally. Please don't. Everyone was new here at some point and everyone had to learn the rules. I actually found your comments on my article Voodoo sex ritual leaves woman dead to be very helpful, although you could have made those corrections without alerting the talk page. Microchip08 is simply trying to familiarize you with the way things run at WN, there is no need to constantly announce that "you are done editing Wikinews." --Ashershow1_talk 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mattisse! Just about a sentence reported in the article "US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals". That's the sentence:"..and the funeral possession was diverted away from the protesters..". "Possession" would sound rather strange;I would use the word "procession" instead of it. Thanks a lot in advance!217.201.10.97 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I changed it . (I'm embarrassed!) Mattisse (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Glad to see you here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to see you too. Mattisse (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked

Just wanted to say I really enjoyed this article. Thanks! - Amgine | t 03:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional newcomer

I, Ashershow1, hereby award Mattisse the Exceptional Newcomer Award for your admirable boldness in writing several impressive articles in less than a fortnight at Wikinews.

--Ashershow1_talk 22:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Greatly appreciated to be welcomed so! Mattisse (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matisse! Just about a sentence reported in the article "US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals". That's the sentence:"..of an anti-gay church that pickets the funerals of military soldiers, ..". What about deleting "military"?It would seem pleonastic. Just "..the funerals of soldiers.." instead of "...the funerals of military soldiers..". Thanks a lot in advance!109.52.0.139 (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. "Military soldiers" was redundant. I put "U.S. soldiers". Hope that's ok. Mattisse (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Re: your note on my talk - no bother. The above award is well-deserved; your articles are painless to review. I was actually thinking it's high time you stood at WN:FRRFP and got the flag yourself... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  If you follow the above link, I've nommed you there - please accept or decline. Good luck should you accept. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya-France article

I've re-reviewed and everything checks out. Good work as ever. :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matisse! Just about a sentence reported in "US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals". That's the sentence: "...Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in his opinion for the court..." . Does "opinion for the court" stand for "opinion written in the name of the Court" or what else? Just about the meaning of "for" in the previous context. Thanks a lot in advance! 217.201.9.152 (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I guess it could have been better written: "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. delivered the opinion of the Court ..."

One justice is assigned to write the majority decision. Usually it is the Chief Justice but not always. Others may write "concurring opinions" (that differ on some point of logic from the majority opinion but still agrees with it), or "dissenting opinions" (if they disagree with the majority decision. Hope that answers your question. Mattisse (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

italics in headline

You can't add italics directly in the headline. You can have {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Al Jazeera'' cameraman shot dead in eastern Libya}} which will make it have quotes (The argument to display title must be exactly the same as the real title, except for formatting characters). Bawolff ☺☻ 03:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Also do not move articles after they are published unless extremely necessary. In addition of causing problems with the redirects you create while moving them, it causes duplicated entries in Twitter and the RSS feeds, amongst other things. Thank you. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, but the original title is misleading as the least important fact is that the cameraman is Qatari. It is the title that caused me to miss the original article in the first place. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking an article (a technical point)

A wikilink in an article should link to a Wikinews page when one is available; links to sister projects (Wikipedia or, sometimes, Wiktionary) should only be used if there is no local page.

There's a template that does this for you: {{w}} links locally if possible, otherwise to Wikipedia.

For example, all countries in the world have local links, so use [[Canada]] or {{w|Canada}}, [[Canada|Canadian]] or {{w|Canada|Canadian}}, etc. --Pi zero (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, I am trying to follow this rule! (Perhaps I will improve my learning as I go along.) Mattisse (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Category

You accidently created the wrong category. The actual category should be Category:ICANN. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You were right

An incorrect story stood as the lead story on Wikinews contending that the Fukushima cable had been completed and the correct information per IAEA was declined because among three sources one was difficult to check. This was my first article at WIkinwews; I am underwhelmed but will reserve judgement. I wonder if I cross post to say a blog or Indymedia if the story would thereby be not eligble for submitting to Wikinews.

The sad fact of the matter is that the wikipedia site seems to be doing a better job of covering breaking news than Wikinew, at least on Fukushima. Geofferybard (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't get discouraged! I found the sources on Japan so contradictory and confusing that I really blew a fuse. My first article was completely trashed and my next one was merged into an article on a different topic. I was ready to give up, but it gets easier as you get the hang of it and find your pace. (Wikipedia may be faster but it isn't always right. I found some TV coverage to be more "breaking" and accurate than Wikipedia. Besides, they are not always careful about their sources.)

Here at least, you can pick your subject and write the article the way you want. I turned up my nose at the advice given to me originally to start with simple articles that aren't "breaking news", but now I think it's the way to go when you get frenzied. There are many important news subjects that should be covered but aren't because everyone, including the major news organizations, cover the same few topics. Hope you stay here and don't give up. There are many helpful people, even if the atmosphere sometimes feels unfriendly! Mattisse (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not completely sure, but I don't think cross posting is kosher. Ask someone like User:Pi zero who is extremely helpful, knows the rules, and is a really nice guy. Mattisse (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse, I'm impressed at your complete change of attitude about Wikinews since a couple weeks ago, and am especially happy that you've changed your opinion of Pi zero. And the number of good articles you've written recently is blowing my mind. Keep up the good work. --Ashershow1_talk 23:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushimagate

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

Geofferybard (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear power plant image

There are a few hundred images on Wikimedia Commons, here, of the earthquake and tsunami damage. wackywace 21:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Losing your article

Sorry. BTW you can avoid this problem by using Google Chrome, which I prefer over IE for writing in wikis. Kayau (talk · contribs) 02:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I use Firefox 4 and sometimes Google Chrome. I never use IE. The problem was that someone started editing the article right after I started it and I was in the middle of creating the first few sentences, so my edits were wiped out and didn't show up in the article history. Very hard to write when someone is changing the first words while you're in the middle of writing them. I thought I was going crazy as I couldn't figure out what was happening. I ended up having to rewrite the whole article over again which removed the changes that editor had made anyway, as they were wrong for the article. Just a depressing incident! (There must be some "in use" temple to stop people from doing that. Or else write all my articles in a sandbox. I've never had that problem before so I wasn't prepared. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, In Chrome, just hit the 'back' button. The stuff should still be there. You can copy it and paste it again. Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I did all that. Hit the back button, etc. But I guess because the way the editor was interfering when there was only a sentence or two in the article, it didn't work. Also, the article was immediately redirected, which probably complicated things. I tried the back button, plus searching article histories of both the original title and the redirect title, but no dice. Even though my edits had been saved! Ugh! I'll be more careful from now on and keep a copy in a text file so I can paste over the edits. More ugh! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 06:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This is why I want the Mediawiki software to have real-time editing implemented. But for now, your work isn't actually immediately deleted when you have an edit conflict. Scroll down to the bottom of the edit conflict page, and it will have your work there. You can then copy and paste it from that page itself, just in case you have a browser issue. Personally sometimes my browser saves my edits, and sometimes it doesn't (speaking of IE, I don't use it anymore, but in the past I found that due to it's oddities it was actually more likely than FF to save the previous page's textboxes. It was still random though). Gopher65_talk 12:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikinews experience.

I'm sorry you've had such an unpleasant experience with Wikinews. I really don't know what to say for you to feel better about contributing; I myself am beginning to feel disenchanted all over again after several years with the project. Maybe you could try avoiding those whom you come into conflict? (It's harder here than on a bigger project like Wikipedia because of the small userbase.) There are still many Wikinewsians, I think, who are overall less abrasive, and with whom you may get along with better. I'd be sad if you left, you're a very helpful and are the main reason why we got ourselves out of a 6-month slump that saw fewer than two articles published a day. (I was going to nominate you for reviewer again, but I'm not sure you'd accept?) Tempodivalse [talk] 15:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No. There are too many editors hostile to me who would make sure no nomination would succeed. And I have lost faith in wikinews as a project. My attempt to understand wikinews through my original conversation with Pi zero was put to a stop and I was forced to remove my honest comments about what I thought might be the problem. No one has been able to explain to me what is going on here.

I finally managed to get on one of those IRCs because someone emailed me that I was been discussed (trashed) there. Besides trashing me, most of the conversation was adolescent male sex jokes (sexism is allowed apparently but not anti-gay comments) and a plethora of pointless comments.

I think wikinews editors are of an age group and culture diverse from mine. I don't fit in, that is clear. Too bad, as I am a writer and copy editor by nature and spend my life putting together research-based information and writing it up. And i truly enjoy it; there is nothing else I would rather do. But that is not what wikinews is about I am concluding.

You are the only editor I trust here. And I appreciate the few others who have been nice to me. I am perfectly willing to take criticism, and welcome it, but I don't appreciate being patronized which seems to be the common mode of communication by those in power who don't have to bother to be otherwise. Mattisse (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a pity it doesn't look like you'll stick around. Yes, IRC is a distraction, there are a lot of inappropriate comments and talking behind one's back going on there, which is why I don't use it anymore. Most of the editors here are male adolescents in the under-18 age group - which may explain, at least partially, the immaturity and abrasiveness you've encountered. I don't feel at home here either. I used to a few years ago (and the average userbase was not any older back then), but not now. Something's changed, I don't know what, or why.

There might be a day when I'll tire of the constant bickering and retire again - for good. In any case, I have enjoyed working with you and appreciate your contributions. Feel free to ping me on any other WMF project anytime (if you're active anywhere else). Tempodivalse [talk] 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• If I can contribute my two cents here...I'm a male editor under the age of 18 who finds the actions of a few immature adolescents deplorable. However, I implore the two of you not to give up on Wikinews just yet. In my judgement, WN is mostly divided into two factions; older (middle-aged) users obsessed with rules and policy, and immature teenage boys whose edits vary from somewhat decent to sexist and homophobic. The job then falls to users like us to foster a welcoming and good-natured environment, because Wikinews is, fundamentally, a sound project. Hostile elements aside, Wikinews users have proved that volunteers can collectively write good, (timely?) news. Mattisse, it would break my heart to see a writer as talented as yourself leave this project, and Tempo I applaud your recent efforts to create a Wikinews that assumes good-faith. I believe we can change WN for the better, that there are good editors on this project, that you're not the only ones who are exasperated with the hot-headed, abrasive culture of Wikinews. Let's do something about it. Please don't leave. --Ashershow1_talk 23:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Another guy under 18 here...I completely agree with the above. Mattisse, you're one of the most talented and promising people to show up in a long time; we desperately need people like you if this project truly is to succeed, rather than limp along for perpetuity. (if on the off chance you did chose to go for reviewer, I'd support you without hesitation) Believe me, your efforts are appreciated by at least a good portion of the people here (which is really the best you can hope for), and it would be a shame for you to leave. I'll say the same to Tempo; you know (I think) I have the greatest possible respect for you and what you've tried to do to make this place better, and for you to leave a second time would be just awful. With best wishes to all of you, C628 (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sexism? This computer runs pretty much 24/7, and it's connected to IRC for most of that time, so it just so happens that I have that particular chat window still open. I scrolled back up and reread the entire exchange during the time you logged in. Absolutely nothing that could be construed as sexist was said during that time, by anyone. Could you please give an example of the sexism you encountered in IRC?

List of conversation topics during the time you were logged in:

• European arrogance verses American arrogance (tail end of conversation, not much said, mostly joking)
• Paywalls at other news sites potentially driving up traffic at Wikinews, due to the fact that we allow free access to our archive
• Mattisse situation (bawolff mentioning that he wasn't sure how to respond)
• Bluegoblin7 requesting an article review
• Mention of the Elizabeth Taylor article's talk page by Deigo (again, Mattisse situation). bawolff replies that he doesn't necessary disagree with Mattisse's points
• St-Lemur links to the en.Wikipedia page on the Lingerie Football League, saying that he finds American pop culture trashy (possibly an extension of the earlier conversation)
• Mention of cliqueness on en.Wikinews
• AutisticPsycho says "nite", and receives situationally appropriate responses ("gnite AP", etc)
• Mattisse mentions block threat. Responses. Various introductions made.
• MC8 mutters about bureaucrats (and, by extension, admins) not having any special authority, even though they have more tools at their disposal
• gopher65 attempts to be humourous by having an exchange with chanserv (a bot that deals with several technical things). No one laughs.
• Amgine tries to convince someone to do a review
• Amgine tries to figure out a specific IRC command to do something technical
• gopher65 hopes that electricbob will turn into a contributing account, because he thinks that's a cool name
• Mattisse critics Elizabeth Taylor article
• brianmc mutters something about doing a copycheck
• gopher65 mentions that translated articles take forever to review
• gopher65 mentions that he finally got around to listening to the song Friday, and, while it is bad, he doesn't understand why everyone is hating on the teenager who sang it.
• Amgine does more introductions
• brianmc, Amgine, and gopher65 comment on Deigo's new nickname (he has many)
• Mattisse and BRS discussion reviewership. Mattisse says xe doesn't want it.
• More nonsense about "Friday". Singing occurs.
• Justin Bieber mentioned in comparison to the "Friday" singer.
• Mattisse leaves

That's it. That's a condensed version of everything that was said while you were online. I fail to see any sexism there. General silliness? Yes. But that's what chat rooms are for. That kind of thing doesn't (usually:P) take place on-wiki. Gopher65_talk 00:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if there wasn't anything objectionable said during that particular time period, I've heard many chauvinistic/bigoted remarks, not just lewd/sexist but also insulting to other cultures. In fact, I'm surprised the channel managed to go so long without a negative comment. (Don't ask me for examples, I don't waste precious computer space on this stuff by keeping logs.) Tempodivalse [talk] 01:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There certainly are bad remarks made from time to time, but I don't believe that Mattisse was present for any of those, so when I read the accusation of sexism I was surprised. I think that some (nearly all, I'd wager) of the negative comments are made by people and directed toward people who don't feel hostility toward the topic being discussed. Eg, Jewish comedians often make fun of various aspects of the 1938-1945 European holocaust; it's uncommon for anyone who isn't Jewish to do so. (I specified a date and place because holocausts are an unfortunately common event in human history. Even in the past few years there have been several events in which enough people were hunted down and murdered for racial or religious reasons that it would qualify as a holocaust. Remember Zaire? It's now called the Democratic Republic of Congo. At least 5 million people (possibly many more) were killed during that conflict, which was partially driven by racial hatred. Although the war only lasted officially from 1999-2003, *many* people continue to die, even today. It's really nasty.)

That kind of self-deprecating back and forth happens often in IRC, and to someone who wasn't familiar with the people talking, it would appear that racist/sexist/bigoted comments are going on. As an example, while I was looking back through the chat logs, I noticed that just as Mattisse left the chat, bawolff and I started a conversation about how bad Canadian music is, and how Canadians suck at writing songs (it derived from the Justin Bieber comment mentioned above). Where those anti-Canadian comments? Yup. They were pretty harsh too. Someone entering the chat just then might have been shocked and thought that we were being a couple of xenophobic morons. But we're both Canadians, so we can say whatever we want about ourselves:P. Gopher65_talk 01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gopher. While following Tempodivalse's directions on how to access the IRC that Nascar was on (which I can't find now), I originally used different names, as Tempodivalse said the nickname didn't matter. So I experienced more of IRC than "Mattisse" did. But thank you for taking the time to analyze every element of the IRC chat you thought I experienced to prove that my perception of IRC is wrong. Surely your effort will serve to bring positive changes to wikinews and attract more hardworking contributors. Mattisse (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually used that alternative name in my search. You also didn't provide an example of the sexism you experienced. And because of the lack of body language used in an all text conversation, I find it necessary to state that I'm not asking this question because I'm trying to angerly disprove what you said. I really am honestly curious as to whether a sexism problem exists, or whether you're one of the many people with little experience in internet subcultures like this one who perceive the cultural differences between the general population and frequent internet users as a cause for concern (that sentence was a mouthfull, heh). I say that because my mom is that way and so is my (male) manager at work. Before you say "well, maybe if people think there is a problem with internet culture there really is, and it should be fixed", my manager is an extremely chauvinistic, bigoted, xenophobic individual. So much so that I find it immensely difficult to work for him, and am considering finding a different job. He doesn't dislike internet culture because it's too bigoted or whatever, he dislikes it because it is different than the 'real world' culture that he sees around him. Any time people encounter something outside their current experience set, they react negatively. I even see this in myself, and I output considerable effort not to be that way.

That's why I ask for an example. I've been hanging around chat rooms, forums, and bulletin boards long enough that I'd be able to distinguish between an example of sexism, and a cultural misinterpretation, where a simple explanation of the contextual meaning of what was said would be enough to smooth disgruntled feelings. Gopher65_talk 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

A few weeks ago there was some question as to why a rusophone editor wasn't listening to commentary directed at him. Someone [I'm not going to name usernames because I'll be accused of finger-pointing] asked something to the effect of "Why is he so dense?" "Oh, he's Russian, that explains it. :D". I see and hear enough anti-RUS sentiment in real life and don't appreciate having to listen to it here. Neither are the bawdy, usually profane jokes appreciated. If an outsider were to ever join the channel out of curiosity how we "collaborate" on news, he would be forgiven for mistaking us as a subdomain of 4chan. I don't use the wikinews channel anymore because I'm tired of listening to this junk. It's fine to chat off-topic occasionally and let off steam (people in real newsrooms do this too, right?) but this does not make us look serious or professional. None of the other Wikimedia channels, even high-traffic ones like #wikipedia[-en] or #wiktionary, are this way. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

People joke in newsrooms yes, but I doubt you would find the "bawdy, usually profane jokes" or jokes offensive to a subculture regularly tolerated in a respectable newsroom these days. (And wikinews want to be a major, global provider of news, right?) Maybe ten years ago or more when there was less cultural awareness. But people get fired these days for that kind of behavior. And I don't think it was ever as prevalent as it is on IRC.

Besides, IRC is not a newsroom. It has been described as fulfilling a primarily "social" purpose and appears more like an exclusive "locker room" with jokes that appeal to a small group of culturally similar people. And if you don't appreciate the joke, then you aren't familiar with the "internet culture" is the excuse, rather than recognizing the "internet culture" as defined by wikinews IRC is very narrow.

The channel that the Nascar incident occurred in isn't even listed at Wikinews:IRC#Wikinews_Channel. How is a newbie ever to know about such channels? You have to be "in group". And wikinews wants to encourage new contributors? How?

And why should discussion of wikinews policy, articles etc. take place in a forum inaccessible to newbies? How are newbies supposed to contribute ideas? On wiki they get shot down with threats of, or actual, blocks. I don't get the thinking here. There seems to be a aversion to having substantive discussion about wikinews policy, standards etc. on wiki. So the suggestion is to set up yet another channel to have these discussions? And newbies will know about and be encouraged to contribute there?

Wikinews seeks to be a major, global provider of news like the like The New York Times or the BBC? Well, these organizations do not give prominence in their newsrooms to the "internet culture" as defined by the wikinews IRC users, and they don't expect their editors, writers, contributors to be familiar with it as defined that way, and they certainly would not tolerate it. Mattisse (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

@Gopher65. I have lurked on IRC under other names for years, so I don't think you are in a position to speak of my experience. And I find it offensive that you are even trying to disprove my perceptions by doing a search of my presumed names. I am supposed to come up with examples? This is not a courtroom, or is it? Mattisse (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC) <undent>

While interesting and erudite, I believe it is inappropriate to badger a user who has stated an inclination to disengage from the project. Please leave the user alone, as xe wishes. - Amgine | t 01:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse: I thought up a point-by-point response to what you said, but it occurred to me that any detailed argument I make in favour of Wikinews is likely to be rejected by you, even if I can stand aside from my own biases to a sufficient degree to make it objectively correct.

So I'll just say this: whatever you think my motivations are for writing to you here, in my own way I've been trying to persuade you to remain on Wikinews. If I didn't think you had the potential to be a great long-term Wikinewsie, I wouldn't be bothering to make the effort to convince you to stay. Gopher65_talk 21:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Anyways, looks like this discussion has dragged on a bit, but I'd just like to say that if you ever reconsider wanting the reviewer bits, I'd be more than happy to nominate you. (Or you could nominate yourself.) I know at least several people who would certainly support you and I think you'd make a very responsible reviewer. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

Re this diff: we understand that you felt hard done by when you began contributing to Wikinews. That's understandable, and you've made this perfectly clear elsewhere on the project. However, continued repetition isn't going to change a thing — the user(s) involved during that time are aware of your feelings on the matter, and what is done is done. Please do me a favour and refrain from derailing topics like this: assume that the user only needs to know about a certain issue once — once you've told them on one page, there's no need to tell them again a few hours later elsewhere. Regards, — μ 23:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That user has justified his behavior as the right way to go. Specifically, he has said that his method is to be hostile and intimate a new user as the first step instead of a more friendly attempt to educate. To threaten a user who has acted in good faith that they will be blocked at the next misstep is not the way to retain editors at wikinews, if that is the goal. He has indicated he has no intention of changing his behavior. The community is tolerating this and thereby condoning it. So I am assuming the blocking policy supports his methods. No wonder editors leave. Mattisse (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

“	A self-fulfilling prophecy is an assumption or prediction that, purely as a result of having been made, cause the expected or predicted event to occur and thus confirms its own 'accuracy.'	”
	— Paul Watzlawick

BarkingFish (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys may have misunderstand my blocking proposal. Please see my reply at the watercooler. --Ashershow1_talk 00:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

iframe

For [1] - the reason it doesn't work is <iframe> tags aren't allowed in wiki for security reasons. (An evil person could do some very very bad things with them). (Although we do have <div id="cgiircbox"></div> code that sort of works, but is kind of crappy). Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find a way to be able to enter comments on the web-based version http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikinews-workshop so that there is a way fr me to make comments. What am I missing? {ener Mattisse to get what I see.)

Mattisse talk) 02:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment

I became aware of the discussion on civility after seeing a post to Mr. Wales page. I became interested because these considerations are relevant across WMF I intend to comment there after I am better informed to the regards of the discussion. One comment which you made did move me to offer this consideration. You stated: "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack". I would like to consider that it can be , and at best it assumes no good faith. To not be an attack, when first rendered, it should be stated as "I perceive your statement as a personal attack". To state something "is", comes in the form of an accusation, it presupposes the one saying so, has authority to make such a declaration, and removes any room for an alternative. By stating it as a perception, the respondent may reply that their intentions were misunderstood, apologize for the ambiguity, and clarify to an acceptable understanding. To me it is intuitive which form has the best potential to remain civil. And it becomes an important consideration in communication. My76Strat (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I am interested in the issue of what constitutes a personal attack also, so I consulted Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

The statement you refer to: Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack. is a direct quote from the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Responding to personal attacks - First offenses and isolated incidents. I did not mean to indicate that I agreed with that quote.

Wikinews does not have a policy defining a personal attack, so that quote does not represent my view or that of wikinews.

I would be interested in your further thoughts. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have shown this perspective. My first impression is that we need to be more clear in policy form to include the nuances which govern civility as an underpinning. If you noticed my comment on Jimbos talk page, you know that I advocate reaffirming these civility standards across WMF, In many regards the policy is well written and allows for sufficient interpretation. The bigger problem, in that regard, is its relative lack of enforcement. The broad intention of: "Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect" can incorporate stringently upon many instances of conduct which would be clearly insulting. I mentioned a concurrent discussion regarding RfA. Many contributors on this discussion also are contributing there. Therefor I want a clear association that civility extends ubiquitously!

Begging your pardon, that I'd like to extend this consideration, so you may understand why I want this directive to be expansive in effect: The heading of my RfA clearly states "Please keep discussion constructive and civil." From this instruction, a participant was moved to append, in language to me: "a) troll b) Fuckup who swallowed the dictionary and extrudes it a la Bayeaux Tapestry meme or c) means well but really doesn't get it (although some answers indicate he does but he ignores his own resolutions thereto). Whatever. But how about just shutting the mad spiel up, My76Strat, because you are taking the piss however you mean it." Obviously there is no congruence in the two statements, but worse there is no mechanism of enforcement! I would propose a warning template be placed immediately over the collapsed comment, within the thread, where it appeared, and whatever punitive actions were otherwise warranted. Change is imperative to correct an attrition imbalance. My76Strat (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Matisse, a helpful comment :) : The Wikipedia policies and guidelines don't work here, they were proposed by Wikipedia editors and approved by Wikipedia editor. This is Wikinews, and we have policies too. If there isn't one on "personal attacks", try posting something at the Water cooler, and then there will be consensus, and etc. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You have a new message :)

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at User_talk:BarkingFish#Recommended_reading. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at User_talk:BarkingFish#Recommended_reading. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

Renomination

Hey Mattisse! Any chance you'd like to run for reviewer rights at this point? I would absolutely nominate and/or support you if you decide to. --Ashershow1_talk 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your faith in me. Right now I am not feeling very good about the place, and don't know how long I can stick around. So it wouldn't be right to apply for a privilege under such circumstances. Thanks anyway. I appreciate you guys! Mattisse (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Fariba-iran-evin1.jpg

Bringing this to your talk page as it seems to have become personal, rather than anything related to the project.

That is the date provided by the uploader today. So the whole thing is fishy? No one checks these things out when an article is published? How do you know the image isn't copy righted or comes from a site like Flickr where conditions for its use can be listed by the image's creator? How do you know it was not stolen from a copy righted news photo? etc. etc. Mattisse (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I assume the date is the image creation date, which is carried in the image metadata. I assume good faith on the part of the original uploaders, etc. Until shown otherwise I do not see any need to not do so. This is very different than the policy of Commons which requires explicit evidence of free licensing. On that project anything which does not have such explicit evidence is de facto a copyvio, quite in opposition to US law. - Amgine | t 03:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your last 18 contributions to this project constitute a series of actions solely regarding this image. Your language choices appear to me to be confrontational regarding the legitimacy of this image on en.WN, and suggest to me you feel the image should be deleted, which constitutes a goal. These facts appear to meet the primary noun sense in English of campaign.

I do, in fact, assume good faith on your part. I understand your actions are taken for the benefit of the community. However, in the process of pursuing that laudable goal you have moved your argument to a section which was utterly unrelated to your topic, but was solely intended as an example of how to write an effective rationale. With your comments in place it will now no longer serve to clarify the topic; in fact it will probably tend to increase FUD. - Amgine | t 18:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is true that I find it very hard to find information here on wikinews on how to do things, what the standards are, etc. and did quite a bit of hunting before I even found Wikinews:Fair use. I don't know what FUD means, so that part of your comment is lost on me. I am sure I deserve the lecture, but it doesn't clarify what I should do, only information on what not to do. So I will stay out of such matters in the future. If I feel like writing some articles, I will do that and stay out of the rest. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt", and is one of many marketing techniques. For example SCO (a technology corporation) received financial help from Microsoft, and went on to send legal threats to thousands of corporations using Linux by claiming (falsely) to own intellectual property within the Linux OS which required licensing. The campaign resulted in slowing the corporate shift to the free operating system. FUD creates the impression of insecurity, and prevents people from acting or engaging. - Amgine | t 19:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not a technical person but a writer. I don't really understand your example. FUD has happened to me here. I feel very insecure and don't feel like participating in the wikinews site. I have totally lost my confidence. I might write more articles, as that has been enjoyable. I have been writing one or two a day on the average and have published about 40 (including two where my contents were added to another article) since Feb 20 when I started. But being unable to do anything else here reduces the enjoyment considerably. So, we will see what happens. To just write without being able to give input or participate in the site is rather lonely. Mattisse (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel excluded when someone attempts to answer all the questions you ask. You're not unable to give input or participate in the site; you've been invited to do so repeatedly. I really cannot give any advice, but my impression of your efforts which have been brought to my attention (which are only the two, and I'm certain you've been productively involved elsewhere) is you telling your peers "you're doing it wrong." I strongly suspect that is not the impression you intended to give in either case. Like so many problems in online communities it is probably miscommunication at the root of the misunderstanding. - Amgine | t

┌─────────────┘
Sometimes it it good to step outside your comfort zone; you've obviously done so in trying ro contribute on Wikinews Mattisse. However, you still seem to expect a plethora of rules and conventions you're used to to apply here. They don't; per WN:NOT, this isn't like any other project. The timescales you may be used to elsewhere to painstakingly spell out misconceptions are not available; people may not assume you're acting in bad faith, but challenging an assertion from experience – as opposed to asking for policy or discussion pointers – can very easily be misconstrued.

I would say that the more published content you contribute, the more you will fully grasp what curmugeonly old gits like myself see as the purpose of the project. For Wikinews the Foundation image resolution was a disaster; it can be taken as, "We'll delete a non-free image of a young person reported on, and replace it with one released freely 10+ years later". Wrong on so many counts it's painful. I've had, in the past, had to fight with people from Commons over things like the spread of Avian Flu; Commons, rightly so, kept the latest spread of the virus under a single image name. We, on Wikinews, needed the "snapshot image" from an article's publication date. There was, for a time, an utter inability to comprehend we needed a distinct, datestamped, version because of when we published any given story.

Hopefully, this makes you start to look at information we use in a slightly different way. As a project, Wikinews can only increase in value the more information enters our perpetually available archives. If you hang on to a Wikipediaesque view that "What the World knew six months ago was wrong, we must now correct everything associated with it" attitude, you will come into conflict with others on-project. I instituted the archiving policy, and personally applied it to many thousands of articles, because this project should not have a "Memory Hole" into which items are dropped.

In addition to the alluded-to 1984, I would suggest familiarising yourself with a TV show from the UK called "Drop The Dead Donkey"; that might orient you in terms of some of the warped humour people employ. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you do make wikinews sound very unattractive. It is clear the writers like myself, though we can prolifically produce articles to publish, cannot join the in your UK cabal and are not welcome here. Because I asked a questions about wikinews image rules, you jump to the conclusion that I "hang on to a Wikipediaesque view"? How do you come to that conclusion? Good grief! You seem more interested in preserving your cabal of "curmugeonly old gits" like you than in increasing the rate of article publication on wikinews. It sounds like this site exists for the pleasure of a small group of editors like you. Thanks for being very clear that article publication counts for nothing, if you don't watch "Drop The Dead Donkey". (I was under the stupid assumption that wiki in general was supposed to be global and not reflect the view of a small cabal of UK editors.) You can be sure that I will ask no more questions. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Newcomer encouragement and civility

I hope you don't mind my starting a new section.

As you may be aware, I am not an admin on this project. The most I can do is attempt to curb other contributor's tendencies to react without thinking, and to encourage civil communication. In my experience, which is all I have to work from, calling attention to a given incident of incivility and then letting it drop is much more effective than hounding someone over it. When two or three such incidents occur the transgressor is unable to disregard the pattern being established, and generally has not built up such personal animus to utterly ignore the notifications. (Also imo taunting and dredging up every case where the 'bully' has erred is both immature and counter-productive; positive interactions are simply more effective and display wisdom.)

My personal effort to encourage newcomers is to mentor everyone I can. If I'm not very successful, at least I'm trying! - Amgine | t 20:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WN:FU

Howdy,

Just a quick note to ask you to write a quick fair-use rationale for File:India Against Corruption.png, explaining what warrants its use in its article. It's purely a formality: its use is warranted, it just needs a rationale to keep the wolves at bay. — μ 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Indian activist begins "fast-unto-death" hunger strike to end corruption

Unfortunately, though... your little update did cause a bit of an edit conflict. ;) --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope not to you. I was adding a mention of Mahatma Gandhi regarding hunger strikes, just an unnecessary tweak! Mattisse (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Kibitz

Baseball player Manny Ramirez tests positive, retires - Amgine | t 20:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording "tests positive" when the test is not specified most commonly refers to HIV testing, where I live. So I think that headline would give the wrong impression. A baseball player found to test positive for a "performance-enhancing drug" is in a completely different category, much more scandalous, and is punished by the MLB. Thanks for the suggestion! Mattisse (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Gunman kills six in Netherlands shopping mall

Hi Mattisse :)

I thought I'd better stop you before you got too far in, since you're actually writing a duplicate article. The story you're creating already exists and has been published. Sorry for the inconvenience, hope you hadn't got too far! Regards, BarkingFish (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed and suggested a merge, as the information is somewhat different, even though you used some of the same sources. Also, I think some of your wording is too close to the source. Mattisse (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write the original article, but if you want to make those comments on the collaboration page, I'm sure someone would be willing to look into them for you :) BarkingFish (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at User_talk:BarkingFish. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

Hello, Mattisse. You have new messages at User_talk:BarkingFish. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

BarkingFish (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

reply

Sockpuppetting

I have recently been made aware of the block applied to yourself in The Other Place. This is most disturbing. Wikinews cannot accept any undeclared use of sockpuppets whatsoever; it threatens the project's integrity.

I will oppose any move whatsoever by yourself to obtain privileges unless you are prepared to be subjected to a thorough checkuser, declare any socks, and give assurances you will neither use them in a privileged manner, or otherwise attempt to mislead the community through their use.

Many users who have experienced difficulties on Wikipedia do find they fit in here perfectly well; however, in light of this particular revelation I feel, as a project bureaucrat, I must highlight that the onus is on you to clear you name and accept any checks the community may deem appropriate to ensure project credibility is maintained. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very willing for you to do any checks you want to do. In fact, I appeal to you to do a checkuser. Please! I used poor judgment at wikipedia after a long period of being bullied. If you look at my user page there, you will see that I was an outstanding contributer there. Please look [2] I have not used sockpuppets since last September and do not intend to ever use them again. I was accused more recently [3] but a checkuser was not done and it was not my sock. I was disliked there because I alienated a small group by my reviews: example However, if you do not want me here I will go. I am doing fine at Wikisource which John Vandenberg recommended that I try and I have had no problems there with 13,000 edits.

However, if I am not wanted here I will leave. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)