User talk:Blood Red Sandman

Discussion archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Aerospace and defense news

(Contingent of serious hardware issues being solved - good luck!)

BRS, I'm seriously considering contributing here due to several issues related to WP. However, I do have some questions, which any of your "lurkers" may seriously respond to.

WN covers "current events. What happens to stories that become "stale"? Are they simply deleted, or is there an "archive"? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As a lurker with nothing better to do, I'm going to butt in here. I hope BRS doesn't mind, although I imagine he'll have something to contribute once his hardware issues are fixed.

Stale articles are deleted, as things stand. There are a few contributors who think a different approach would be preferable - publishing with a different date, for example. But policy is to just delete them, unfortunately. If there's a particular stale story you're interested in, an administrator such as myself or BRS would be happy to provide you with a copy of the most recent revision (in the majority of cases - some articles also contain personal information &c which should not be seen by non-admins). DENDODGE 10:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I dip online very briefly, using a rather poor substitute machine, so I can answer that: Generally, yes, they are deleted if you mean "stale" in the way we do, which is what Den's talking about. We have a slightly odd system, whereby articles are written, and then reviewed by an independent trusted user. If an article becomes stale without ever passing a review, it is never published and hence never goes via the main page. For those articles which are published, however, they are 'anchored' to the date of publication. They can only be updated for the first 24 hours after that - then, any new information goes in a new article. These articles aren't considered stale - after one week, they are protected, although minor changes can be requested. In that respect, we do have an archive. We do this because articles are meant to be a 'snapshot in time' - so updating old articles would be considered editing history itself, hence the requirement for a new one each update.

Of course, if a user wanted to keep an article they worked on but that never made the grade, it can be put in their userspace. I hope that all makes sense to you; glad to see you thinking of coming over (which reminds me... you suggested I get in touch with another user 'bout that on WP, must remember to do so). Wikinews:Archive conventions relates to this, but hopefuly you get the idea from my little spiel. You may find Wikinews:For Wikipedians more helpful; or, maybe not - I'd appreciate feedback on wether that page actually was any use, actually. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the extra sight review at Dan Savage wins Webby Award for It Gets Better Project — I thought those external links were a minor addition, but whatever, no worries. -- Cirt (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• I was certain they weren't when I saw 'em, but having thought about it, maybe you should have just sighted them yourself. But, it sure isn't all that big a deal. :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, no big deal. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for over sighting my little additions to the Kevorkian article! Mattisse (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• No problem! :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to review and possibly help

Could you please review and (possibly) assist me with my latest Wikinews article? It's called Scottish singer Jai McDowall wins fifth Britain's Got Talent series. If I've made any mistakes, please do try to help me to rectify them as far as possible. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not at this time of night, no. Sorry. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for offering to be my mentor. I appreciate any comments or criticisms you may make. I welcome your input from you on any issue. Please give me any feedback you feel comfortable giving me.

Do you think it would be OK if I apologized to BarkingFish? I didn't email him in his admin role; I really wasn't thinking that way. But I regret that I muddied the waters by an ill-considered email written when I was upset.

Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be fine, yes. I'm sure Barking would appreciate it. As I said, I think the best general advice I can give you is to back down and do something else for a while whenever you feel upset.

I'm hopeful this can be made to work; certainly, I feel it worth trying. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Mattisse (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

re your edit to Court rules Massey can appeal US restrictions in mine disaster investigation

I don't think this edit is correct:[1]

From the New York Times May 19, 2011,[2] referring to the report the article was originally about:

• "The report, released on Thursday by an independent team appointed by former Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and led by J. Davitt McAteer, a former federal mine safety chief, echoed preliminary findings by federal officials that the blast could have been prevented if Massey had observed minimal safety standards." So I don't think it is quite correct to describe it as "MSHA's independent investigators". Or am I wrong? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• The sources are confusing; traditionally, government investigative agencies are supposed to be independent; hence, I was reading independent report as being MSHA's. This is an international standard, best implemented in aviation. I'm most familiar with commercial air accident reports. Close re-read suggests to me there are three reports either released or in production; MSHA's, the "independent" report (note: Given the political nature of some of the claims made, I'd suggest anyone appointed by a politician cannot be said to be independent), and Massey's report. I suggest the article be clarified to reflect there's three of these things out there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• OK, if you can see your way through all that! The original article was on just one report, reported by the New York Times May 19 as I recall. And the quotes added by the original editor were from that report, I believe. Mattisse (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

hard time with Weiner

Hey Blood Red Sandman. Thank you so much for reviewing the article on the Anthony Weiner scandal. It's very much appreciated! Ragettho (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• No problem! It was a difficult review, but worth it. Nice to see real collaboration and hard work on that one. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Help to change username

Hello, I've changed my user name on English Wikipedia but i didn't do same on WikiNews, now i want do same, if it's possible please change my user name (فرامرز دانا) to Faramarz , Thank you. --فرامرز دانا (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. I'm the third user you've spammed this out to. Have some patience, or ask at WN:CHU. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I had patience, I don't know why in English projects no one answer, i asked three user because they didn't answer me (first user i have asked did not answer and i found that the second user wasn't a bureaucrat!) but anyway your answer was very perfect (i don't know how describe it!), i hope Wikimedia change these Inappropriate rules. --فرامرز دانا (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know why?

Why is my new article Clarence Clemons, Springsteen’s E Street Band sax player, dies at 69 getting no hits at all? Can't figure it out! It's not a redirect or anything. Can it be that no one at all is reading it? Mattisse (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect it is getting hits, and the bot is failing to add it onto the template... It could be due to the ’ - IIRC every so often we used to stumble accross random characters that weren't covered by it. We normally use ' so it could have simply slipped by undetected. I'll suggest that to Bawolff, who runs the bot. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I change the name to Clarence Clemons, Springsteen's E Street Band sax player, dies at 69? I didn't realize that issue. Mattisse (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't; that would cause a duplicate entry on various feeds. There's another way of doing it - go to history, and there's a little link marked page view statistics. That shows daily stats, but today's aren't up yet. Check back tomorrow and it'll show maybe ~2,000... Hopefully. Also, if I am right about what the cause is, Bawolff will hopefully sort that out very quickly i.e. next time he's online. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I did check history and it showed 45 hits for June 19.[3] Mattisse (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes; on the nineteenth (yesterday). It was published today, so we'll have to look tomorrow to see if there's any kind of decent count; developing articles are effectively internal things that aren't public-facing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative (please tell me if I am), but why shouldn't I just change it so Bawolff doesn't have to worry about it? Or if the article gets a new name at this point, will that screw things up? Mattisse (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, post-publish moves create duplicate entries on things like the Twitter feed. And, if we leave the bot unfixed it'll just happen again sometime. :p If it's not the bot, it will indicate a much bigger problem :/ (I would say you're more inquisitive than argumentative... Also, being argumentative is not always a bad thing :p). As luck would have it, he's just popped onto IRC, so we'll soon find out. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

...RIA Novosti celebrates...

Thank you very much for your help! Lvova (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• You're welcome! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help

My article was redirected to an article you approved,[4] Former Rwandan government minister Nyiramasuhuko convicted of genocide. My article is (was) Rwandan becomes first woman convicted of genocide by UN court and contains much more complete information, wikilinks, pic etc. Look at all the wikilinks I looked up to explain the article further. This does not seem right. Shouldn't it at least be a merge? Isn't wikinews aiming for comprehensive, informative articles and not only the bare bone articles? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do here. Nothing is stopping you performing a merge, or otherwise adding to the original article. Redirecting new duplicate -> older original is somewhat standard; amongst other things, it leaves the history intact for users to do just that. Nothing has actually been lost. There's no real alternative to redirecting; we can't publish the same article twice over! Ideally, you should usually check round for such articles before you start, and work on those that exist if they are there - though in this case, the title wasn't especially clear pre-move, so I'm not surprised you didn't spot it.

Redirecting has to occur at some point, and as nothing's lost in doing so it's helpful for people to get on doing it. As I say, feel free to transfer details etc from one to the other. In reading the sources, I found a wealth of detail I'd have liked to have seen in the one I approved, but I lacked the time to work on it myself. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article is bad, confusing and misleading. Can it be redirected to Rwandan becomes first woman convicted of genocide by UN court which is much more direct and doesn't contain unnecessary words like the minister's name, which doesn't ring a bell with anyone, IMO. Mattisse (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the title as it stands, actually. Rwandans, Tanzanians and those familiar with the events will have heard of her; the rest of us get clarification. Now, to take a look at this merge before time runs out. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I did check carefully for an article on the same subject before I started. I didn't see it, probably because the title was a little obscure to me (although I had researched the sources before starting) and I missed it. Or for some reason it did not show up in the Newsroom. I didn't look other places. Is there somewhere else I should look for such articles? Mattisse (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

There's also Special:NewPages, which is quite well filtered to only display proper mainspace articles (ie no redirects etc). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but anything without Rwanda or Rwandan in it (the most important key word) wouldn't have caught my eye. The name of the "government official", or even that the person was a "government official" would not have either as other "government officials" have been convicted in the past. "Government officials" can be of any level, not necessary high. The name "Nyiramasuhuko" is not one known to most of the world and I didn't even consider it in the title and wasn't looking for it. When I saw the two articles there, after mine was in the "Submitted for peer review" queue, I considered putting a merge tag on, but I assumed that was the Reviewers role to do. Perhaps the Reviewer didn't see any similarities in the article titles to do so. Next time I will plaster a "merge" on right away, as soon as I read the article and realized it was on the same subject. (I read articles in the queue as a matter of practice). Mattisse (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
Comment You don't need to be a reviewer to switch a review template to {{develop|I am going to expand this and will put back in the review queue shortly}} (forgive breaking the interaction ban, I feel this will be useful advice in avoiding this situation in future). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert

Hi Blood, noticed you reverted the cat I added. The cat seems relevant. (I'm watching your page) Lionelt (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hi! I don't feel it irrelevant, I feel it to be unsuited entirely to a news site. From a news perspective, this is only a loose tying together of topics at best. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we delete the portal and keep the category? Afterall, there is a Category:Libertarianism... Lionelt (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

also Category:Nationalism Lionelt (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am loathe to cite policies and guidelines not written specifically for this project, but I will make an exception and cite w:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as, while the examples given are (obviously) Wikipedian in nature, the logic is set out carefuly and essentially applicable over here; and, I agree with it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

User:ZéroBot

Hi ! You've recently blocked my bot here with this comment : « Appears to be an unapproved bot; if you wish to run the bot here, approval can be sought at WN:BOT (limited exceptions are detailed at WN:GB) » … whereas :

1. My bot is a global bot (verify)
2. I didn't plan to run the bot on this wiki.

So, can you please unblock him ? Regards, Toto Azéro (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Yes; but, please identify you own the bot and that its status as a WN:GB-compliant bot upon the bot's user page. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  No problem ;-) done. Toto Azéro (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  Thank you for your (very) quick answers ;-) ! Toto Azéro (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Have I made too many edits here to review the article?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's no easy answer to that. I looked very carefuly over the changes you made; reviewers are generally granted some leeway to play around with copyedits etc. The key point for me was where you had chenged information you left the content still along the same lines as it was before, just updated slightly. Therefore, I'm going to call it as a 'you can review'. Thanks for asking, though; it's a bit of a grey area and I'm glad you kept it in mind. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}

Okay. Thanks for the response.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Has something changed?

Now when I hover over a diff on the recent changes list a dysfunctional screwup pops up and not the normal, informative informational popup. This doesn't happen on wp or other wiki sites. Has something changed with the css code or something here? Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Normally, I wouldn't have a clue; but I do know that bawolff trimmed some code back here. No idea if that could cause the problems you're experiencing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, are you using Lupin's popups, or are you just looking at normal title text (Aka what you'd see if you're not logged in). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have Lupin's popups checked under "Gadgets". I'm always logged in. But if I log out, there are no popups. (ugh!) Mattisse (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not seeing any js errors, and the popups on the rc look normal to me when i hoover. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

hey

I'm actually a really nice person i just get really bored. Plus I probably hold the position as the worst troll in wikinews history. So yeah lol. sorry bout the trolling!! =) K!ttiesonf!reFOREVER! (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Philippines and U.S. hold naval drills in South China Sea amid territorial dispute

I checked the entire article, and I think it meets the standards. But since you have failed the article, what further steps do we have to take now to resolve this conflict? Ragettho (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I've revised the article to address your concerns. I don't plan to review the article, since I'm busy at the moment. But for future reference, would I be allowed to review the article in similar circumstances? Ragettho (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said to William above, that's a grey area - reviewers, traditionally, are granted some leeway to make changes in the course of fixing up pre-publish. I'd say you'd significantly changed the details, so I'd say no on that particular article. However, if you need to ask, you could argue it either way. Possibly a guideline might be in order. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

thanks, moving further on reviewing matters

Hello Blood Red Sandman. First of all, thank you so much for nominating me for reviewer status! Now that the request has passed, I look forward to working with you and all other reviewers. Although I experienced a minor hiccup regarding the Philippine/US territorial dispute article (it's a good thing you checked the article in time!), I hope this isn't indicative of my future performance as reviewer. All the best, Ragettho (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is, as you rightly say, a minor hiccup... It was quite a subtly hidden problem, and on another day it could have slipped past me, too. I wouldn't worry yourself over it. :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. Would you mind reviewing the article? Two reviewers have already gotten involved, unfortunately. Ragettho (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the time right now - I've been busy all afternoon, and probably will be again this evening. I'd rather hoped to write an article myself, too, but that's looking doubtful. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Global Edit Bot

Hi,

I just noticed that you blocked my bot here before it did a edit, i only created a global account. Is there a specific reason why is blocked? The bot will do uncontroversal edits outside the main namespace.

Best, Dirt Diver (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes: The bot doesn't comply with WN:GB. Regardless of what 'uncontroversial' means - if it's only interwikis or double redirects, it will be allowed once it has a track record elsewhere - the bot, as you say, has not made an edit. Not only do we not know what it does, we do know it has no track record of doing it. You will either need local approval or to build up a track record of interwiki maintenance and/or double redirect fixes.

I understand our bot policies are very strict, perhaps even annoyingly so - but they exist because we've had issues with problematic bots in the past, and on a small wiki they can wreak havoc. Often, when people create a bot - especially a global one - they intend to run it without checking local policy, so I block in advance to prevent them being run. It isn't iseal, but unfortunately there's no alternative that I'm aware of.

Hope all this helps. If you don't like it being blocked, I can happily remove the block so long as you promise not to run the bot unless and until it meets these requirements. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I just editted my config file, currently en.wikinews is marked as "skip" the bot will do no edits on this project until all local policies are being followed. If its not a problem it would be nice if you removed the block for now, the block is making my bot throwing errors at me ;-)

Best regards,

Dirt Diver (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete Jesus Is Coming? Surely the second coming of a deity would be massive news? We should be the first outlet to cover this glorious event. — μchip08 09:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• The title implies a future event. Perhaps more appropriate would be Wikinews:Story preparation/Jesus arrives. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

US Senate postpones vote on Libya conflict to focus on national debt

Thanks for approving the article, and for reviewing my added edit. Ragettho (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

reverting edits of Glavkos bot

I see that you have blocked User:Glavkos bot indefinitely and reverted its edits. I don't know your policy about bots, maybe it's ok here to block every new bot that has made 8 or 0 edits. I can see also that this bot removed a valid link to fa in its first edit, so this edit should be undone. But reverting valid edits, that's another thing. Some new portals have been created on Greek wikinews and I see no reason for deleting the iws pointing to these pages. Regards, --Flyax (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• You created a bot, failed to declare, didn't seek the most basic of permission and ran it without even anouncing who owned it. Such is incredibly disruptive; this is why I block new bots - to stop people like you before they get started. If you cannot be bothered to do any of that, then I certainly see no reason to carefuly check foreign language interwikis - especially when some of the edits change and/or remove existing information without explanation. The bot was clearly not even working properly, and so all its edits were summarily dismissed without further checks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was not my bot. So, I don't know who you are referring to with the expression "people like you". One thing for sure: I don't like your tone, so I'm not going to address you any more. I just hope that you'll be more careful in the future and that you will abide by one of all wikis' constitunional rule: asume good faith. Farewell. --Flyax (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank God for that - I don't like your tone. If it is not your bot, I suggest you refrain from trying to manage it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, assume good faith is chiefly a Wikipedia policy/guideline. See meta:Assume good faith. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor WP hack

Could you port my user and talk MediaWiki:Common.css from here to enWP?

And, add the following:

#p-logo  a
{ background-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Wikinews-logo-en-0-red-150px.png') !important;
 }

I'd like to have a more unified look between my page there, and here, and it should be amusing to see the reaction. ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Glavkos bot

What was the problem ? Glavkos (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple problems:

1. The bot was being run without approval, in breach of WN:BOT
2. The bot was being run without any kind of userpage identifying it, in breach of WN:BOT
3. The bot was malfunctioning: I count one valid link removed and two other links removed without mention in edit summary and therefore presumably removed unintentionally, or at least misleadingly, in eight edits to give a whopping error rate of at least 37.5%.

For all these reasons, the bot was and remains blocked. Bots can cause havoc on small wikis, which is why we insist on them being approved properly. Unapproved bots editing namespaces with FlaggedRevs enabled also create vast amounts of work very quickly, and in any namespace an unapproved bot will flood recent changes. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok ..all these are reasonable and acceptable. What is the procedure to reverse the block? It is the first time in my whole wikihistory that I have been blocked. I know that ignorance is not accepted but I hope the inconvenience to the community here was not that serious finally. Just tell me what else to do (I created the bot page and put a petition for permission). All the best, Glavkos (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It is from the community that I am waiting the permission. Glavkos (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I mean, promise you won't run the bot unless and until you get permission at WN:BOT. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok...I have already deleted long ago the en.wikinews line on my interwiki.py file. Glavkos (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Great! I'll go lift the block straight away. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

about Crochet.david.bot (t · c · b)

Hello. What you believe to be a robot not appropriate is just my robot with which I create all the account in accordance with the SUL system.
It's not because I create an account that it will actually be used on this project.
But just in case one day it would work poorly on another project and that it would inadvertently EN.WN work, at least you know who is the owner and so contact me.
Crochet.david (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot Unblock

Hello - as User:AvicBot is now a global bot, would you mind unblocking it please? -Avicennasis (SWMT) 22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I may unblock it unilaterally, but can you specify what is its purpose? Thank you, アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 23:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. AvicBot on EnWn (here) will only fix double-redirects. (Which don't happen too often here, anyways, so you'll hardly ever see him.) I'm not running the interwiki tasks on any Wikinewses'. -Avicennasis (SWMT) 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright, unblocked, as B-R-S apparently won't be back for some more time. アンパロ ^{Io ti odio!} 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) -Avicennasis (SWMT) 23:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for dealing with that, Diego. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

GhalyBot

Good evening It seems that you have blocked GhalyBot. It is a Global Bot , to avoid any problems I will apply for a local Bot flag for it here. Would you mind unblocking it? Many thanks.--Ghaly (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I just checked and it seems fine, sorry to have bothered you with that. --Ghaly (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That account doesn't seem to be registered on this wiki. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Can you prevent a case of Internet assassination by re-educating Mattisse before myself or BarkingFish ban for 666 years? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You know I'm willing to try to help Mattisse. First, though, I'll need to educate myself on the latest fun. I'll maybe dig into that tonight. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Umpteenth "I'm leaving" toys-out-pram on Talk:Main page; copying disruptive stuff from there to the Water Cooler (summary: Shit-stirring); "baiting" on WN:AAA with kindergarten comments about me not signing each individual paragraph. Posting nonsense about xyr socking which provoked my asking for xyr to be checkusered (subsequent to me having to beg stewards to clear our CU backlog with no local CUs being available).

Education should, I feel, be provided with a sharpened clue-by-four. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Union contacts

I don't know anyone off the top of my head in the SNPL...the closest in the UK would be Unite, which BALPA is a part of. --81.100.247.174 (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Unionzzzz? I haz some contacts. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Andy Martin, U.S. Republican Party presidential candidate‎

Thank you for the review. I don't know about another article on the subject though. Frankly, I'm tired of dealing with Mr. Martin.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you review U.S. Presidential candidate Fred Karger denied place at Fox News debate, 4:00 is getting near.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go take a look right now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It is appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No prob. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews:Changing username bump?

Hi there, was wondering if you could possibly deal with my request over at Wikinews:Changing username? Been waiting for a few days now and I must admit I'm getting rather impatient, especially considering my username at the moment. (Trying to move away from using it online as much as possible...) Would really appreciate it, thanks! AllynJ (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are two more requests waiting over at Wikinews:Changing username. Slipknot1 (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Review request

Excuse me, Blood Red Sandman? I would like to ask you to review my latest article, Fiona Donnison jailed for murdering children. I would be grateful if you could. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you Blood Red Sandman but could you please review another article of mine? It's called Three killed amongst Birmingham, England riots. I would appreciate it if you were able to do so. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 20:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's quite long, and I've done quite a lot of work over the past few days... Unfortunately, now there seems to be a slower period again, which means it's sat some time already. :/ Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Helping user

Could you provide some guidance for the contributor at User talk:Pi zero#Seeking help with publishing interview, please? As it's not my area of expertise (even if I weren't having severe computer problems today). --Pi zero (alt acct) (alt talk) 11:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for both of your help! Teemeah (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

SF article

Since you are one of the reviewers online, would you please review the Two injured in parking lot shooting following Raiders–49ers game article. It shoudn't be much trouble. Thanks and regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It'll be lunchtime for me in a few minutes, but assuming nothing real-world interrupts me (I'm moving home soon) I'll review it after that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

rename

Can you please carry out my name change on WN:CHU?  † CR90 ^(talk) 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware there's a small backlog but I've been v. busy (and my laptop has not been too healthy). I do promise to try within the next day or two; we have very few local 'crats I'm afraid. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Backlog dealt with. I couldn't fulfil your request owing to a lack of confirmation you are the owner of both accounts. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think I needed it because it is a totally new name everywhere, and it was approved everywhere but here without the proof, but I have now provided it  † CR90 ^(talk) 19:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done it now. Trouble with a backlog is, by the time I finally got to it it wasn't new... And I didn't think to dig into account age. :/ Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's ok, at least it's finally done. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Another way...} 19:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello! please make the following pages to semi-protected pages:

• User:Faramarz
• User:Faramarz/UBX/1
• User_talk:Faramarz

Thank you. --Faramarz^Talk 15:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've not done this as I really don't see any need. These appear to be low-traffic, and hence unlikely vandalism targets. In addition, your usertalk is where people get in touch with you and protecting it should be a rare last resort. Are you specifically expecting a vandalism problem soon? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably you're right about talk page, but I think my user page space needs to be protected because I hardly ever come to English projects (the reason is my English is not very well!) and there's some possibilities to exposure vandalism, therefore please just protect User:Faramarz and User:Faramarz/UBX/1. thanks a lot. --Faramarz^Talk 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Local users handle vandalism reverting pretty well, so the exposure is minimal and limited. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

SUL request

Hello Blood Red Sandman,

I'm user Joplin from nlwiki and I'm trying to complete my SUL. There is a wikinews user Joplin, but this user hasn't made any edits. I haven't found a page here where I can post this request, so I hope you can help me out. Best regards, 87.212.244.53 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joplin. You'd have wanted Wikinews:Changing username. I don't actually understand how people manage to find these pages on random WMF projects - thankfully, I've never needed to myself! The Joplin account has never edited and lain dormant for years, so I'll usurp it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Done Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Blood Red Sandman, I actually think I found the right page first time! Thanks for the fast action. Best regards, Joplin (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Request 2

Hi Blood Red Sandman,

I was wondering if you could delete an article I started here as I thought if I started the article other editors would jump in with the writing, but this notion was incorrect. Aaaccc (talk), 27 September 2011

• Done Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Review

Please may you review this article? It is called Powerful Typhoon Nesat slams Phillipines. --Onewhohelps (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hopefuly, at some point; now, there are other things afoot that I must address. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please Review the article

Hello, Blood Red Sandman, as you noticed there are two similar articles about life extension manifestation, one of it was written before the event, another one http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_ever_manifestation_for_radical_life_extension_took_place

after the event. May I ask you to review and release the second one and delete the first one since it became outdated while it was moving through procedures. Thank you in advance!

• Another user did it long before I had the time to devote. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hi, I resubmitted the article with all problems resolved, may I ask you to release the new article

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_ever_rally_for_scientific_life_extension and delete the previous one (it dublicate with the incoorect title) http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_ever_manifestation_for_radical_life_extension_took_place

• Actually, I'm getting fed up of semi-regular requests for my time from various users on my talk page. I'm going to decline. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Request 3

Hi Blood Red Sandman,

I was just wondering if you would be able to fulfill a request I made here to have a link to a deleted photo removed. Aaaccc (talk) 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. I've declined the request as that's not how we deal with deleted images; details on the talk page. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to try to recover the photo as it was deleted for missing permission or source. I was just unaware that you could not remove the link. Aaaccc (talk) 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews is not Commons and we will make a judgement on the suitability when we see it for ourselves... Or, more likely to be accurate, Amgine will make a judgement when Amgine sees it for xyrself. The aboslute furthest we will stretch is the possibility of a placeholder image noting our partner organisation has removed their photo. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Review request 2

Can you please review this article? I have placed an additional source. Is it alright to be published now?--Hallows AG (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm working on a very long OR article right now (close to completion). I'm afraid I can't look at it tonight my time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

All eighteen people in Indonesia plane crash found dead

Hi, I was just wondering which of the passages in the article infringes copyright--Hallows AG (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• Most of them. I'd suggest a total rewrite. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

pop articles should be fixed now

--^ Bawolff ☺☻ 19:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews:Changing username

Could I please, pretty please, ask if you might expedite my request (for reasons that I think you'll see). Thank you so very much for helping me out. --NicholasTurnbull (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• Ha, that must be about the nicest request I've ever received on-wiki. I'll have it looked at before midnight UTC, probably *much* before midnight UTC. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NARA interview FA

Hey! Thanks for passing the FAC for Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence! Ragettho (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No bother. It's a great piece! Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually have a few questions regarding 'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia, if you don't mind answering. (It's a phenomenal piece, by the way)

How much expertise do you have in genetics? (or, more broadly, biology?) Did you start writing this article knowing what you were going to say, or were you guided mostly by the interview responses? Also, how did you decide which people to interview?

The reason I ask is that I'm involved in a student publication that focuses on science policy, and I think your article is a great example of work I'd like to see more of in the future. Also, my coursework requires me to work on a field research project, interviewing and reporting in laymen's terms are of particular interest to me.

Cheers, Ragettho (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to talk about this. I'm not a geneticist (although Pablo Gejman, a big cheese on the schizophrenia study, asked if I was), in fact my science is largely limited to amateur interest. That said, I have embarked upon a marine science degree and as I start to specialise I'll be heading down the biology route. My ultimate aim is to end up in research.

I started out selecting interviewees on the basis that they had appeared in the news recently. My plan was to focus on this massive study, yes, but also provide an overview of these conditions appearing in academia over the past month. (Well, it grew to be a month, I originally wanted to interview some researchers on the original project and just look at it.) I went for NICE because I was already aware of their existence, being a Brit myself, and they seemed a good choice to discuss potential applications - I wanted to get a bit of "what does this mean for sufferers"-type stuff in.

I found it helps to do your homework; I read over a lot of articles old and new to gain a basic understanding of what was what with bipolar and schizophrenia. That's where MDF came in - I wanted to talk to a big charity, and I didn't even need to go looking since I'd already read some of their stuff whilst researching. One of the directions I wanted to steer things was vaguely political; is there enough funding, is healthcare good enough. I did look for good answers, but I didn't find any, except for the fact major international funding is here for really big projects. I confess to not being surprised. I had background material from that month's news I could quote for US healthcare, and Gejman has some universal comments on that. I'd found Berk to talk from an Australian perspective; a British support charity was then the clear choice to cover this from all the angles I had research comment from.

I actually laid off the writing process until I'd gathered everything. I had a reasonably good idea what I was going to say, I needed it to guide my interviewing, but I wanted to wait until I had all my material. I was then able to draw connections between all the various points I'd picked up, interweaving the responses so they were relevant to each other.

Hope all this is helpful. :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks BRS! That was really helpful. :)

The method you used is basically the same as the method my classmates and I plan to use for our field research project. The info we get from literature reviews, interviews, focus groups, ethnographic studies, etc never come in an orderly fashion; you just have to be able to take all the info and deal with it as it comes in.

Please forgive me for straying from the initial topic, but I would appreciate some input. As I implied earlier, my classmates and I have to conduct interviews and lit reviews to prepare a report with recommended plans of action (it's a lot like a think tank), so I'm trying to devise a way to ensure that all of our research is organized and can be accessed easily by other students. There are 30 students in the class, and each person is required to conduct four interviews and a substantial amount of lit review. Focus groups and surveys may be a part of our research as well. Obviously that is a lot of information to organize. Fortunately, my university offers free Confluence wiki services, so I've proposed that the class use this service to organize our findings.

What do you think of this idea? In your experience (which I presume is quite broad due to your adminship on multiple wikis) are wikis effective in organizing professional and academic work? I'm tempted to cite Wikipedia as a successful collaboration that could serve as a model for our class, but at the same time I realize that there are vast differences between Wikipedia and other collaborative projects. For example, Wikipedia is a collection of facts that can be easily divided into categories, topics, and headings, while other types of academic and professional work involve a mixture of facts and opinions. Furthermore, the structure of a report is often guided by the thesis statement and the author's writing style. For this reason it is often very difficult for two or more people to collaborate on a report — we can even see this in Wikinews, where most of our articles are written by one person each!

Despite these setbacks, I still recommend using a wiki for my class, since I can't think of a better way to organize an entire class's research. But if you have any added insight into this situation, then I would greatly appreciate your advice. Cheers, Ragettho (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not what wikis are designed to do, and it may be that there are better alternatives out there, but I think a wiki will be serviceable. Each 'raw' source document - be it academic research, survery results, interview responses, anything - can be dumped onto the wiki. People can then combine their efforts to figure out how to put it all together; indeed, sections can be prepared independently and it is possible to develop multiple drafts simultaneously and then select the best or merge the best elements. So yes, in short, I think the wiki model can handle this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethiopian PM: jailed Swedish journalists 'messenger boys of a terrorist organization'

Thank you for bringing to my attention the missing URL. I have put it in and the article is now ready for review! Hope to hear from you soon, JacobUOW

Copyvio

Hi BRS, I believe that U.N. urges for investigation into Gaddafi's death is a copyvio of a CNN news article called U.N. calls for Gadhafi death investigation, originally Hallows AG copied this exact headline name which I renamed, I had also tagged this twice for copyvio but he has removed the tag. He believes that swapping the order around is perfectly acceptable and he wants it reviewed additionally. Just to let you know. Cheers. :) --Onewhohelps (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Quoting a person, provided that what that person says is not modified, is not considered a copyvio. See this.--Hallows AG (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about different things; as far as I can see, OWH thinks the headlines are too similar whilst AG thinks the concern is quotes. I'll retitle it, hope that will sort things out :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming request

Hello. Could you please consider this request ? Alexandria asked stewards to perform the renaming on eswikinews here, but stewards scope is not to use bureaucrat rights on a wiki where there are local 'crats. Thanks by advance ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps at some point. I consider renames to be a very low priority indeed in ordinary circumstances. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you define "some point" as well as could you explain why they're a low priority? Thanks. Kwsn (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I would define "some point" as "an undetermined point in time". They are a low priority in ordinary circumstances as a) they are not mainspace and b) they are purely aesthetic. At times, more urgent ones come through e.g. harassment evasion - sometimes only known after private contact is made. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, do you think that you will get a chance to review anything today? --Onewhohelps (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to decline to review when other reviewers are also not reviewing; having done so once, I have no intention to single-handedly carry the project again. Besides, I have done some work today off-wiki on a major OR piece that will be going out within days. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well to be honest, the project doesn't seem to be doing too well at all and I think with the reviews not being processed, i.e. a review has not passed in 2 days, people are getting bored of reading the people really are getting bored of reading the same stuff on the main page which isn't what I would expect from a News Agency. --Onewhohelps (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly reject the implication - by addressing this to me - that this is somehow my fault. I'm starting to get fed up of you; after harassing me offwiki, now it seems you insist on the same onwiki. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello Blood Red Sandman, do you mind closing this accreditation request for me? Thanks a lot!--Hallows AG (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• I would, but someone in their infinite wisdom appears to have created a template purely for the opening/closing of AR requests that I cannot recall seeing before. As I've said above to a very different request, at some point I'll settle down and try to figure out how it works (or remove it entirely). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I closed it, using the same templates I see used to close others lately. Is there another template kicking around somewhere? --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - {{AR status}}. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm not fully awake yet. I closed the FR request, rather than the AR request. Duh. (Well, the other wanted closing too. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quite alright. Close em' both :) --Hallows AG (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've closed the other, and while I was at it I added some instructions to {{AR status}}. --Pi zero (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No-fly zone demanded by Syrian protesters

Thanks for reviewing this. It's really satisfying to see an article submitted with a problem, it's reviewed and flagged for improvement, the author improves it, and another reviewer reviews and publishes, all in a reasonable time frame. That's how it should work. :-)

(Btw, just for perspective, I'm likely to be too busy to do a review for some hours at least, as we prepare for a winter storm bearing down on us that's forecast to be the biggest we've had this early since before the civil war (er, that'd be our civil war, a couple of centuries more recent than the one on your side of the pond :-). --Pi zero (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I'll hopefuly dip in again later (I'm reluctnat to touch OWH's stuff, as I don't wish to attract further conflict; I'd much rather xe settled down and went back to being productive, as we know xe can be). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I review these days mostly on the young end of the queue, as a big effort to review aging synthesis is harder to motivate — if there's a problem the reviewer can't fix, it's increasingly unrealistic that the article will ever be published, so a "not ready" review really is likely to be a "fail". And in the case of those two articles, OWH expressed not caring about whether they're published here (and said iirc they'd been submitted to OG); author apathy is pretty de-incentivizing to a reviewer, so I don't have any plans to review those two other than to mark them stale once they clearly are. If somebody else wants to review them before then, that's up to them. --Pi zero (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello friend! Just about the article " 'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia". First of all: great work as usual! Simply that: what about putting "...genetic elements of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia." instead of "..elements of bipolar, schizophrenia" in the title? 2.194.11.183 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Bye!

Hi! Our practice on this has now become standardised with the view that 'and' is not needed in titles, as it can be implyed with a comma. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian newspapers to be fined for media breaches

Hi,

You reviewed my article with the above title recently. Firstly I would like to thank you for your review and your comments. However, I also have a few questions.

In regards to the comments about paragraph length, I would like to say that I definitely do know what a paragraph is, and would consider myself to be a very strong writer. Coming into university, I wrote all of my stories broken up into paragraphs each detailing a different point (as you would with any writing style - essay, review, etc). Each paragraph would be reasonably short, at about two or three sentences.

The idea of using only one sentence (and very occasionally, two) per paragraph was actually acquired post-joining university. This is something we have been taught from day one in our course. And this is not a fault of the university's, this is the journalistic norm in my country.

I am more than happy to adhere to the Wikinews style guide, and I have just re-read through the section about paragraph length now as I must have missed some of those details earlier. I will amend my article accordingly, and would appreciate any help you'd be able to give in doing so.

I will have to ask you, politely, to refrain from making suggestions about my intelligence, or insinuating that my country's journalistic styling is inferior to others. Like I said, I am willing to adjust articles that I write for Wikinews to fit the Wikinews style now that I have been made aware.

As for the other comments, they were very helpful. Thank you for pointing out the technical error I made in the title by stating 'media breaches' and not specifying 'media standards'. I seem to be having a bit of difficulty editing the title though, and I was wondering if you would be able to tell me how to do this?

Thank you for your review and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Regards,

Elliot Cameron University of Wollongong Bachelor of Journalism

First off, it is entirely inaccurate to suggest I made any insinuation about your intelligence. I did make an insinuation about your knowledge - an entirely different matter. It was a positive insinuation (I implied you did know something). Based on the above comments, it was also a correct one.

Given that paragraphs exist for a reason, I am going to openly state that I have long held the practise of not using them in low regard. Please do remember that Wikinews exists in part to supply an alternative to the mainstream press and therefore are not bound by its practices. The entire point is to attempt to write to a higher standard; at least, that is the final goal somewhere in the distant future, regardless of how or even if it will be reached. 'Everyone else does it' is rarely a valid reason, especially in journalism. (A credible explanation, however, is that your uni may have an eye on employability; 'anyone who might employ you will want you to do it' is a valid reason.)

The factual error in your article's headline is actually relatively minor, I'd be happy to sort it myself if there had been no other problems and then just publish it. I'm not going to move it myself as you've just said you'll be doing some work (if two people save an edit together, it causes problems). The rename option is in the top-right (between the star, which is for 'watching' articles, and the search box). Hover over the arrow and it should just drop down.

I am pleased to get to the bottom of this troubling string of paragraphless articles. Pre-UoW collaboration they were so rare that they could normally be taken as an indication of a cut-n-paste copyright violation, and I was certain you'd not done it out of simple ignorance: as said, you don't get on a journalism course without being good at writing. How to address it is another issue... But that's my/'our' problem, not yours, so I wouldn't worry about that. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I hope I did not sound aggressive in my first comment. I just wanted to make clear that I was writing in that particular style in accordance to how I have always been taught/my country's journalistic norms. It seems that you did not take my tone as being aggressive, so thank you for that.

In regards to what you said about Wikinews being an alternative - and hopefully one day a 'higher standard' - of regular press, I very much respect your ambition as I think this is an industry whose standards have been allowed to stagnate (and sometimes relapse) where they could otherwise be strengthened.

I have also sent a group message out to the rest of the students in my year's course at UOW, as well as the relevant lecturer for this subject, detailing Wikinews stylistic preferences. I hope this means that future articles submitted from our uni will be in accordance to the Wikinews style guide, making our lifes - and yours - just a bit easier.

Regards,

Elliot Cameron.

No problem, Elliot. I think a big problem with journalism is there's little money in a lot of it. One answer is to actually produce very high-standard stuff worth paying for - Private Eye in the UK is the only thing I'd generally actually pay for. Of course, the reality is (expensive) experienced staff are being cut from papers.

Thanks for getting word spread around the class about how we handle paragraphs. Hopefuly that'll resolve the issue. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those hyperlinks to my article and publishing it. I very much appreciate it. Been a pleasure working with you. And yes, unfortunately due to the state of the industry as well as the world economy, many people have been losing their jobs. The move away from traditional forms of journalism has seen good results (ie. creations of sites like this), and unfortunate ones (big newspapers losing staff/lowering standards). It will be interesting to see where it ends up in a decade or so from now.

New Jersey jury clears man of five murders over 1978 teens' disappearance

I ran into trouble verifying (and a touch on neutrality, though that I could have fixed well with in my purview if not for the verification thing). Could be I'm just too blind to see what's in front of me; it wouldn't be my first turn as an idiot. I've actually dug up one (smallish) detail from my list since submitting my review. --Pi zero (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

re User talk:64.184.36.191

That's w:User:Dantherocker1. That's what he does. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)