Thank you for the recent comments


Mattisse, thank you for the recent comments and for your gestures of good faith. I really appreciate that. A lot. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Weiner article


My apologies for abruptly pulling back the article. Were you about to review? I'm going to update the article shortly with new developments. Cheers, Ragettho (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not a reviewer. I was updating the article, but I will step back if you are doing it. I didn't mean to step on you toes. My apologies! Mattisse (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, it's my fault. The article isn't "mine" per se, and it was wrong of me to assume that you were editing in a reviewer capacity. In any case, I invite you to continue updating the article! :) Ragettho (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure what new info you had in mind, so would you like to revise the article now? I'll stand back and edit once your done, and by then we'll probably have more info from the news conference. Ragettho (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping out with the article! I also really liked this comment you left on the talk page. I agree that if we strived for articles with a broader focus, then that would go a long way in attracting more readers to the site. Ragettho (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

☻ Someone has poured you tea

Well that was a really hectic and challenging piece of work! :) But I think it was worth it. Although you are right that the article was about to become stale in the US, I also agree with Blood Red Sandman's view that our broader international audience would appreciate the article we wrote. As for your other comments, there were certainly many alternative angles and perspectives to consider as we wrote the article, but at the end of the day we really can't cover them all. Hopefully we can improve when we work on the next big story.

In any case, I really enjoyed working on this article with you. I think that I've learned a lot about refocusing an article on what's really important, rather than pure sensationalism. For this reason I have "poured you tea". (I stumbled across the page a few days ago, and I think that it's a fascinating yet often ignored concept.) Enjoy!

Best, Ragettho (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I enjoyed working with you too, and appreciate your flexibility and adaptiveness as the focus of the article changed. And thanks for the tea! Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit conflict on FTC/Google article


My sincerest apologies for the edit conflict. I didn't realize a page move would cause a conflict like that! :( Did you lose a lot of edits? Ragettho (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Genocide article


I gave a lengthy reply on my talk; but, a short version of what I said is that you're free to transfer extra bits accross to the other article, and I'd be pleased if that happens. Redirecting's always going to happen at some point, as that preserves the history, but doing so doesn't preclude a merge. Hope that helps. Side-note: I'm very glad to see how industrious you're being now you're back to working in mainspace! :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I hope I did it ok, as my article contained everything the other did and more. I worked so hard on it to make it as perfect as I could. Feel free to tell me of my mistakes. Mattisse (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've not written many wikinews article so I suppose that despite my own hard work, it was less than "perfect". Apologies for such a "bad" and "misleading" title (although, actually, many people following these events have heard of the former minister's name). I'll know better next time. --Belovedfreak (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
That was more of an obliteration than a merge. Not a trace of the original remained, despite the fact it contained details yours did not. I think I managed to pick them all out and re-add them. The idea of a merge is to preserve the best of both articles, but so far as I can see you just copy-pasted yours accross and deleted the text that was there in the first place. As a tip which just came to mind as I typed: if you're merging a longer article to a shorter one, it may be easiest to take details from the shorter one and put them in a copy of the longer one - then paste the whole lot accross. That may be an easier way of not overlooking details; something I wish I'd thought of years ago!
Something that seems to have been lost in communication - which I apologise for - is that when I talked of redirecting, I was trying to explain why yours was redirected, and reassure you that it didn't mean your work was lost. But, no harm done there.
Anyway, the key thing is that now as far as I can tell all details from both are now present and sighted for display to the public; what you might describe as the WN version of a happy ending.
One thing I recall you saying before was the enjoyment had been lost for you. Now that you're getting stuck right in to some very difficult pieces, would you say that you're enjoying it? A big hope in offering to mentor was to re-establish that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
There is a gadget called "On screen edit" that might be useful for this sort of merge; I would certainly use it (of course, I'm already used to the gadget :-). The gadget turns a copy of a mainspace article, in a particular browser tab, into a "scratch copy" that you can shade parts of, as if you were using colored highlighters on passages on a hardcopy page. (I use it when reviewing articles, marking verified passages in one color, factual errors in another, copyvios in another.) The scratch copy can't be saved, which is great because you don't have to worry about accidentally saving it on-wiki — though you do have to be careful to keep that browser tab continuously on the version you're on-screen-editing, until you're ready to throw away that scratch copy. --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'd like to try that but I could not find it in the "Gadgets" list under "Preferences". How do I implement it? Mattisse (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's a section under the gadgets tab called "Reviewing articles" — which you may have overlooked because it sure doesn't sound inviting to a non-reviewer, but I don't think any of the gadgets listed there actually require the reviewer bit. It's the last of the four in that section. (It ended up in that section because Bawolff kindly created the gadget for me in response to a water cooler discussion of how to peer-review.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
ok, thanks! I checked it. Mattisse (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure


Thanks for you nice comment on my talk page, it was my pleasure reading that article. Robert Beck (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are very welcome! Mattisse (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech


What is your opinion on the request to rename the page at Talk:US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that what it is already named, or am I confused? Mattisse (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I was linking to the talk page where the user made the request.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you


Thank you for rewriting my article. That was very kind of you. I have to admit that I'm disappointed that my version couldn't make it to being published. Your English is better though, so I'll just leave the article like that. Thank you again! -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



Hey Mattisse! I was surprised to realize that you're not a reviewer! Would you accept a nomination? I think you've done really well with writing your own articles and copyediting those of others. Ragettho (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the offer! Let me think about it. Mattisse (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely. Take your time. :) Ragettho (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes I hope you accept this. I will definitely support.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your kind words. Every time you edit an article I've written I see what a bad writer I am! Mattisse (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
No no, a bad writer wouldn't have been able to write so many great articles.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was a little worried that if you were in the middle of composing an edit, I might rename it out from under you. Apologies if so. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

South Sudan gains independence Hi Matisse! Just about "..At 0000 EAT Saturday (2100 UTC Friday)..". I see at the moment there are 2 pending changes about the owner of the midnight.What does this midnight belong to? Friday or Saturday? I would see it exactly as the last istant of Friday. What is your opinion? Thank a lot in advance! (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write that part, and some foreign language sources, where it came from, have been removed. Since the English sources just say at midnight, without specifying, perhaps that would be good enough, since it was midnight local time. Mattisse (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

'bundlers' article


Please just leave it as it is now. I'll see if I can review the article as if the changes wheren't there, and if so, I can just pull the changes myself and publish.

I'm going to assume the extra names are the only thing verified from the NYT source; I can't access NYT articles. --Pi zero (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, all I added were three names from the NYTimes article. I can email you the text of the NYTimes article if you want. Mattisse (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



Don't get too worked up by PiZero's comment. Your work is very much appreciated here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your encouragement. I'm really on the verge of ditching it. Your words definitely help. Mattisse (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another note


Earlier you mentioned not being able to find the ArbCom cases somewhere (but I don't exactly recall where or when for that matter). See Wikinews:Requests for arbitration. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much as I searched and searched and couldn't find anything! Mattisse (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lizards are capable of problem-solving, study shows Hi Mattisse!Great article as usual! Just about the sentence:"..The Puerto Rican lizard...known to excel at foraging food by being acutely aware of movement...". What movement is involved here?The Puerto Rican lizard's movement or perhaps the movement of insects hunted while looking for food? Thanks a lot in advance! (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi, thanks for the question and for letting me know that you liked the article! The lizards are known to be acutely aware of the movements of their prey. Scientists didn't expect that lizards would also be so acutely aware of color that they could learn so fast to distinguish which color cap the worm was under. (I should have been more clear in my writing.) Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

WP articles vs WN articles


Wikipedia articles may be longer than Wikinews articles, but a Wikinews article has to be completed, factchecked, copyedited, and peer reviewed within 2 days of an event happening (within a single hour is the ultimate goal though). On Wikipedia the same process occurs over months, if not years. There is no pressure on Wikipedia because of this. No pressure = no stress. No stress = no burnout. *That* is the reason why creating news content has such a high burnout rate in comparison to historical content. There is no deadline when you're writing history, but there is one when writing about current events. Gopher65talk 01:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I realize that the time limit may cause some editors stress, although the worse stress is that of seeing your article fail to get reviewed in time and having to search everyday for updates to prevent it from becoming stale. On Wikipedia the standards are so much higher and the quality of prose is also much higher. Plus an article must be complete, while on wikinews, with a little effort, a wikinews article could be less superficial but usually the superficiality of the article is not held against it. In fact, I was told originally that an wikinews article with more than two sources would have a hard time getting reviewed.
I don't thing the very stressful task of getting an article through FAC in the time allotted can be compared with writing an article on wikinews. FAC = time limit = many criticisms from many reviewers that have to be resolved in a short period of time in a long, comprehensive article that may have 200 citations or more. Writing a wikinews articles from two sources is, in my view, not difficult or stressful. The stress comes from the lack of AGF and the difficulty with 150 reviewers, to find one even willing to look at the article. I see so many go stale. I have been very lucky to have published so many in such a short time. But the writing of the article has been enjoyable and not stressful. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply