User talk:TUFKAAP

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

edit to terrorist article

Hi, you changed part of the NYC subway bombings article to something else which isn't sourced. The source (IIRC) doesn't say that both leaders were killed, only one. It does say that they are both dead, however. Please fix. Griffinofwales (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about the removing the interwiki and link. I didn't realize I had removed them. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Massive snowstorm blasts most of United States

I changed the quote to something verifiable. --Pi zero (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

French aircraft on flights over Libya; US missiles launched at targets

This edit should not have been self-sighted. Do not self-sight substantial edits to published articles. It is a form of self-publication, and is not allowed. (I realize, you may have missed when this policy was officially adopted; it came into effect when we had autosight turned off.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Human Achievement Hour

Hi, I thought of mentioning the Human Achievement Hour but my thinking was that it might made the article resemble the climate change/global warming debate like Wikipedia has, which I didn't think had a place in an article announcing the occurrence of Earth Hour, especially as arguments pro and con weren't featured in the sources (except the National Geographic mention). Also, how is leaving your lights on during Earth Hour distinguished you from someone who just doesn't know about Earth Hour? (I hadn't really heard about it before.) Anyway, thanks for passing the article! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reviewal privileges

Do you have any diffs you could link to, in your recent removal of reviewer privileges from Nascar1996 (talk · contribs)? IRC is not connected with Wikinews and should not be the reason for something as serious as a de-reviewer. A request is standard practice, surely? At the very least, it should be specified what exactly was done wrong for the benefit of others. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad behavior is the main reason Tempo. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there is nothing on-wiki that merits de-reviewer. Basically, three or four editors on IRC agreed to remove the rights of a user without even consulting the community at large for consensus. Most editors do not use IRC consistently. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tempo thanks for trying, but all is over for me. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to restore them right now. I was a quick cool-down for Nascar. I want him to let some steam off... and relax. Have a nice cup of tea. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving. I can't not stand joking, etc. Thats why what happened happened. There is not really any point of doing that. If I do return, I will return with a new face, new attitude, and a new username. I will also not create only NASCAR articles like I have been. I enjoyed my time here. --Nascar1996 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I please get unbanned from IRC. I would like to say one last thing. It was assume good faith. All that is over. My eyes became watery after all this happened. --Nascar1996 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You've retired. No point. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Tina/BRS... No. Sorry. :( --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Its alright --Nascar1996 (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You are to stay banned for a period of 24 hours, per multiple ops/users. However, your Reviewer rights have been restored. I want you to still contribute. However, you have acted very badly. Homophobia and racism is something that we don't lightly here. Even if it's on IRC. Relax, take a chill pill, sip some tea. And come back tomorrow. Start over anew and a clear the air. :) Okay? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove my review rights. I'm not going to return. If I do I will not be trusted. Per my first RFA, MC8 said I wasn't ready because I almost retired. Its over. I destroyed my name. I am going to have to live with that. --Nascar1996 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for restoring the rights in question (even if they were resigned anyway). I'm a stickler to the rules and don't like to see them broken in this manner, that can make me quite irked sometimes. :) Tempodivalse [talk] 01:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very depressed about this. Nascar1996 is a kind, thoughtful, competent editor in my opinion and never should have been treated this way. Nascar, please come back. You make Wikinews a better place for me. Please reconsider. Mattisse (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Editors like Nascar should be nurtured for the good of Wikinews. He has always shown an openness and a willingness to learn and improve. He makes Wikinews a more welcoming place for people like me. Mattisse (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Once again, IRC has no bearing on the wiki, especially for an indefinite block. This user needs to confirm on-wiki he wished to be blocked, and even then I don't think there is basis for a block according to the blocking policy. This process lacks transparency. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
• The question is if what happens off-wiki impacts what happens on-wiki. I don't feel we should beat up any particular editor over such; we have no policy for determining when the line is crossed. This is why I hate crosswiki and offwiki disputes, they're so messy and difficult. Having given it almost a full day, I'm inclined to think Nascar could contribute just fine on-wiki. However, I can fully understand opinions to the contrary. We should have an abstract discussion on the water cooler about when off-WN issues impact upon WN and how to handle them, rather than yell at TUFKAAP. We've never properly considered cross-and-off wiki; there's never seemed any need. We'd best sort that out. Disclaimer: I supported de-reviewer at the time, but I've come to think they didn't need pulled instantly. If required, a request for de-reviewer would have been sufficient. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• I hope my comment on TUFKAAP's permission page is not interpreted as "yelling" at him. The comment was a criticism of the general practice off wiki decisions being made that are not transparent to the community, and not aimed at TUFKAAP specifically. What happened was a very ugly incident. I hope wikinews considers this sort of thing important enough to solidly address the issue and improve the standards here. If wikinews seeks to attract and retain users, then a pleasant, fair working atmosphere with clearly understood procedures would go a long way accomplish this goal. And casual incivility from the long time editors should not be tolerated because they have been here longer and have power. It gives the impression that certain editors "run" wikinews, while the rest of us are "out group" and held to higher standards. I was threatened with a block when I first began because of remarks I made when I was upset to Pi zero when my first article was given a review I could not understand the meaning of. I really said nothing that was clearly uncivil, certainly not as uncivil as remarks I have seen that editor (and others) make routinely. That is not a way to treat a new user on their first article who has not gotten used to the manners and ways of Wikinews. (And please don't block me for these comments.) Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it very concerning that you think you might actually get blocked for making the above comment (Rest assured you would not). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was threatened with a block a few days after my first edits in February [1] because "your comments about [an editor] being unaware of the wider aspects of article writing are unpleasant to say the least" because the editor I posted to "has been with Wikinews for a considerable time". So, in other words, I risk being blocked if I have an editing disagreement with an editor who has been here a long time, or express my own views. Since then I have had published 34 articles with no problems. But the effect of that block threat is that I have felt intimidated about making any comments except Thanks! and such. I hope you won't block me if I say that the blocking policy here seems a little irrational and inconsistent. And there seems to be few proactive attempts to educate; rather the approach seems punitive in tone. Mattisse (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

<Undent>

Matisse: there's nothing I can say to change your mind or perception. I can say that BarkingFish was clearly out of line, and you could not be blocked within policy. Policies are never implemented perfectly the same in every situation; we're all humans. I hope you won't hold us to a higher standard than is realistic. - Amgine | t 00:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse: No, you're right. Our blocking policy is a little bit *too* inconsistent. That is partly by design (individuality and chaos rule, rather than bureaucracy and red tape, like on en.wikipedia), and partly because we haven't been active enough in reigning in some of our overzealous users. We don't want to have too many rules, so our current blocking policy is basically "do what you think is right, within these guidelines). Maybe the guidelines are ever so slightly too loose, or maybe they're fine and we're just not following them. But either way being friendly to newbies without creating stupidly large amounts of red tape to prevent abuse should be our goal. And it is. We just haven't found the right balance yet. But whatever we do we don't want to become like Wikipedia, where you *must* warn a user X number of times, no matter how blatant their vandalism, and you *must* be friendly to them, even when they're mean to you. That's silly. Gopher65_talk 00:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BarkingFish is often clearly out of line, and when he isn't he is unnecessarily rude. It sets a tone here. I won't defend Wikipedia at length, but at least there is an attempt at friendliness there. And the blocking policy is clearer and somewhat more transparent, although a lot goes on behind the scenes under the guise of the "Arbcom" and their secret discussions and decisions. But editors do take much more care in wording at Wikipedia now, noticeably so in the last few months, including edit summaries (which can also be immensely insulting.) And admins are held up to increasingly high standards and are expected to be positive examples. Increaingly there are conversations of the need to have stricter desyop procedures, and more admins have been desyop recently. Has wikinews given up on the matter, since so few editors are in control and it is scary to confront them? I fully expect I will be blocked fairly soon as I am being way too outspoken. Mattisse (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse - If you consider me to be "often clearly out of line", you are welcome to nominate me for removal of my privileges here. I don't consider myself to be "unnecessarily rude" either, and would welcome proof of that here. However, in the case of the issue you raised above, I would say this: You weren't acting out of malice - I bit you because I felt that your comments about Pi Zero "not understanding the wider aspects of article writing" were out of order. I didn't say you would be blocked, merely that it could happen. What others would see, I will say in my defence, if you'd linked the rest of the conversaton, was that as soon as you retracted the comment concerned, I was immediately polite you to, and thanked you for doing it. I also offered to help you, and suggested other users would do the same. BarkingFish (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

BarkingFish, don't you think that being polite after biting a newbie is a little backwards. Is intimidation the way to communicate community standards? Is intimidation a community standard a wikinews? Clearly there is a power structure here and I would for sure be punished by the power structure and my life made harder if I nominated you for removal of privileges. See Removal of reviewal privileges: go right ahead, make my day) I frequently see your rude, biting remarks, but I would not dare to challenge them out of fear. You say above I would say this: You weren't acting out of malice - I bit you because I felt that your comments about Pi Zero "not understanding the wider aspects of article writing" were out of order. I didn't say you would be blocked, merely that it could happen. In fact, you added: 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.

Remember, this was your first ever post to me. That I believe is clearly biting a newbie whom you admit was doing nothing out of malice. And you certainly did not explain what "the wider aspects of article writing" meant. Aren't the "wider aspects of article writing" a topic that should be frequently explored, analyzed and criticized here, a news writing site?

Remember this was my first experience with a "reviewer" here. I was having a discussion with Pi zero because he made general comments, like he was "uncomfortable" with what I wrote rather than making clear criticisms of my article in his review and I did not understand what he meant. He said information was unsourced, while admitting repeatedly that he had not consulted the sources. He say I was employing "poetic POV" without consulting the sources. The comment you posted on my 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) This was your first post to me, a newbie who had been struggling to make sense of the way wikinews works. You admit there was no malice. You said you would block me without warning if I again made "any wide ranging statements" because my comments "about him being unaware of the wider aspects of article writing are unpleasant to say the least." Is "unpleasant" the same as "uncivil"? Is "unpleasant" to you the same as "unpleasant" to him? Is it possible to have meaningful dialogs without occasionally something being considered "unpleasant"? Is that blockable? A long time editor cannot be questioned or asked to explain? I was trying to have an editorial discussion with Pi zero about what his statements meant. I wanted to understand. Now I fear being blocked if I make any "wide ranging statements", whatever that is. However, if I make specific statements, that I am fairly sure you will think it is blockable also.

I said I can remove some information and thereby remove some of the sources. I could remove the bit about the mercenaries (takes care of one source) and/or remove the part about the oil prices (that would remove another). Would that be ok? He said that was not what he meant and this was a misunderstanding.

Presumably this is the conversation that you found blockable here. If editors are not allowed to discuss issues, try to clear up misconceptions, and air differences without threatened with a block, then how can this be called a news site? In any case, the result of your threats to me is that I asked Pi zero and he has agreed not to review any of my articles again. I have had absolutely no problems with reviewers of my 34 articles, all published, since then. None. It is unfortunate that I was prevented from working out my problems with Pi zero by you and not allowed to come to an understanding about what he expects me to do with his general statements. I learned to back away from Pi zero. Because of your interference and threats to me, I avoid him. (Feeling constrained about interacting with Pi zero is a real loss to me, as I greatly respect him.)

There was no constructive outcome from your treatment of me. Except that I intend to avoid engaging in anything you or Pi zero are involved in, and my opinion of wikinews has dropped dramatically. The way the site is run drives contributors away. No wonder hardly anyone participates in wikinews. I started out enthusiastically with high hopes of helping out, as I am a writer by profession, and I wanted to produce good contributions to make the site better. Now I see the problems here are too great and I fear the site will not last much longer. Regards Mattisse (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's backwards. Quite the opposite. I toned down my language towards you. I bit, i realised I shouldn't, and toned down my comments in my reply. My "interference" as you put it, was because of this - a comment which I felt a "newcomer" had no right to be making to someone who knew a hell of a lot more about the site than them at that point in time: "I would like at some point to attempt another article, but I would like to request, if this is possible, that you do not review my work. I think you do not appreciate the more complex aspects of article writing and seem to rely on your own preconceptions of what is true, your own prejudices, your own "worries." Perhaps you are much younger than I am. I have been rigorously trained to relay on sources and not my personal opinion. You and I have very different journalistic ethics. Hopefully, if I recover from this nasty experience and write another article for Wikinews, you will not review it." You wouldn't be punished by anyone if you requested the removal of my rights, you're welcome to handle it as you wish. BarkingFish (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

<Undent>

No Mattisse, your comment on my RfP, did not upset me. I am very hard to upset... at least on Wikinews. Relax. :) In fact, I'd be more than willing to smack any users with my banhammer with a slight knock-down for being rude to you, because granted... there are people who can be rude, biting and punks. You're a good contributor and we, especially I, don't want to lose you. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of ACLU, EFF challenging US 'secret' court orders seeking twitter data

Dendodge seems to be doing some checking on this but, it is quite substantial and could probably do with more than one set of eyes. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Thank you! I was beginning to fiddle it to death with constant updates. Mattisse (talk) 21:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Help!

As the reviewer who passed Indian activist begins "fast-unto-death" hunger strike to end corruption, I was wondering if you would review the "pending changes" on it. The article has been rewritten after publication, a updated section added and sources added that are dated after the date of publication.

Only one change seems reasonable. It fixed a misspelling mistake.

The last pending change Dendodge (Talk | contribs) (Move Wikipedia box for page layout reasons) is based on the fact the the page that shows up has implemented the "pending changes", so to Dendodge the layout looks skewed due to the added section and other changes.

I would really appreciate your help on this, as all the pending changes have changed the article so much, I am afraid people will keep changing it to "fix" the page due to the "pending changes" having changed the article so much.

Hope I am making sense. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My edit had nothing to do with that. The Wikipedia template was after {{publish}}, which created loads of whitespace. I simply moved it somewhere where it could float to the right of some text. The pending changes had nothing whatsoever to do with that. DENDODGE 20:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources after the date of publication aren't allowed. I rejected those changes. --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for birth certificate!

File:BarackObamaLongFormBirthCertificate-Cropped.jpg - much better than another head of Obama! Mattisse (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token b472f38a56e7799a04c7a368ca33b1c1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Review request

Could you please review Space Shuttle program in penultimate landing as Endeavour enters history books after 19 years as soon as possible? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Indentification

Have you identified to the Foundation yet? It a requirement for Oversight. See meta:Identification noticeboard. The stewards need you to identify before you get Oversight (and 25 votes). —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)