User talk:FiloActual

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikinews

A nice cup of coffee for you while you get started

Getting started as a contributor
How to write an article
  1. Pick something current?
  2. Use two independent sources?
  3. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start.
  4. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
  5. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?

  • Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template.
    [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

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

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
  Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.

Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.

The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.

Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies
Places to go, people to meet

Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.

There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!

Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!



It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.


-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies.....[edit]

...I missed that one of the sources was in English. However, the other sources really don't belong, as they're in another language. I will remove them, but the article will still be lacking one source (as we require 2 sources). --Bddpaux (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically, I see that I didn't miss it because it wasn't there when the article was first submitted. English Wikinews requires two sources (independent of one another) for each article. I'm told that, in the past, accredited reporters might translate other-language news articles on the talk page, and that was accepted. For now, I'm removing the non-English articles, as (at this point in the flow of things)they can't really be used here to add value to the article. More annoyingly, I don't have time to review this right now, so another reviewer must take it....sorry. --Bddpaux (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I like the fact that you work following stricly the rules. So, my question: official website does not serve as a source, as it is in English? And, where can I place translations of the actual Spanish sources? On the other hand, an authomatic translation of the actual Spanish sources would provide easily the coincidence and truth of the sources... Pleased to be in contact and thank you for the advice! ;-) --FiloActual (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm reviewing the article now.
Non-English sources are a thorny issue for us. We'd really like to be able to handle them more readily than we now can; it'd be great to be able to scoop the mainstream English media with stories that have only been covered in some other language. We have a practical problem with them because it's usually difficult or impossible for a reviewer to cope with them; and therefore, we have an official policy —here— that we can cite to require English sources when available. What's more complicated, there are two different issues here, verification and copyright. For verification, one can add English sources; but for copyright, one ought not to remove a source if it was actually used to write the article, even if it's in a language the reviewer can't read fluently.
I'm concerned, at the moment, that the article may not satisfy our criterion for freshness. This is another problem that arises fairly often with stories that migrate here from some other language's Wikinews: because the story followed such a winding path to get here, by the time it arrives in our review queue, it's old.
Meanwhile, I'm fixing other style points as I come to them, so hopefully there will be things to learn from the review even if we're unable to get the particular article into a publishable state. --Pi zero (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────┘
 I've submitted my review, unfortunately finding it not-ready for publication in its current form. I considered the freshness issue carefully, and wrote up my reasoning in as much detail as I could in my review comments. I also did a bunch of work on the source citations and the English phrasing of the article, as documented in the detailed history of edits during review. (There would likely be other things that would have come up later during the review process, if it hadn't been cut short by the difficulty over freshness; but of course, I can't know what those other things might have been.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, well, you have your criteria with freshness. It is a pitty since the best form to learn is to cross the whole process. On the other hand, would you interested in preparing an "Exclusive interview", I mean helping me during the process? I think original news are more important , as you suggest, than just translations of other languages sources...--FiloActual (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A complication is that we judge the bona fides of an original reporter based on their accumulated personal reputation, and, well, you haven't accumulated any yet. (See WN:Never assume.) Your account was created less than a week ago.
You might want to inquire about your OR aspirations at WN:Water cooler/assistance. Folks there might even have suggestions re the accumulated-reputation difficulty. --Pi zero (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galician emigrant Rufino López receives 2013 Spanish-American International Award[edit]

Congratulations. You're a published English Wikinews reporter; just checked google news, and yes, it's there. --Pi zero (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! looks GOOD. But it is so due to your editing, I am reading through all the changes you made, because I can learn a lot. Can you be my tutor here around? I'd like to prepare "original reports", visiting some events and making interviews. Is it possible? What do I have to do? Thank you, and I'd like to make more and better. ;-) --FiloActual (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We really hope contributors will learn from our edits as well as from our comments. The better an article is when first submitted, the easier it is to review, and the faster the article can move through the review process.
It's amazing how much nicer an article can look after some editorial cleanup. And yes, we love when reporters learn to do that stuff beforehand, saving reviewers work — but there's a lot of fundamental stuff about the content that the reviewer can't fix, so the reporter has to get it right. Depite a few verification problems here and there, this was fundamentally a sound article.
Original reporting is discussed at WN:Original reporting. It generally takes preparation and lots of documentation, such as handwritten notes (a traditional favorite), audio recordings, pictures, what have you. The general rule is, aim to provide more documentation than needed. I'd suggest, for ideas, looking at examples of OR in our archives (Category:Original reporting), especially examples of featured articles that are original reporting. I might add, that I myself have never written OR here, so I see OR mainly from the perspective of someone who ends up reviewing a lot of it; you might also do well to ask advice from those with personal experience of doing it. Perhaps you could ask for advice at the assistance water cooler. --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will follow that instructions and start thinking about a new OR among other reports which may give me a better understanding. Also, probably I will create a new nickname here in wikinews so that it is more appropriate for English speaking readers, since my actual nick is too Spanish. ;-)--FiloActual (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Manhattanʼs 'Little Spain' comes to big screen, documenting Hispanic immigration in New York City[edit]

Hi,

I've run through this with the notorious "Reviewers' Red Sharpie", done as-much copy-edit on the article as I can, and left what — I hope — is enough guidance to get this completed. Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I did submit some modifications following your remarks. --FiloActual (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I struggled with this, but managed to get it published — about half an hour before it would have gotten a lot more awkward to count it as fresh (Wikinews keeps universal time, so in just a few minutes it will be Saturday on Wikinews, making it four calendar days since the focal event). Please see my review comments and history of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is extremely interesting to witness the process of how the article gets its final form. Well, it is the best way to get familiar with the "style" needed. I think I am closer now than before, but I am going to keep doing. I will try to upload the covert art of the film, in Commons, and will start with other new.Thank you. --FiloActual (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my English is not good. Thank you for my "thank" for the English news translater to Portuguese. However, I wanted to translate the news cited for you. O_O Saskeh (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU for helping make stories more known around the globe! Keep in touch.--FiloActual (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're uploading the cover art, it'll end up deleted as a copyvio from Commons. Look for the "Upload file" link in the Tools section of the sidebar. You're allowed to use a local upload under fair use/fair dealing to illustrate an article on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to try, if something fail please help. Thank you.--FiloActual (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You got the local upload fine, at least technically. I've added a FU rationale for use on the article, which was the only missing detail. Nobody on Wikinews would delete the image for that being missing, but every now and then someone from Commons decides we need "help" deleting stuff we've not got round to writing rationales for.
I really like this article because we rarely cover Film. It's difficult to write on the topic and avoid being opinionated-enough to run foul of Neutral Point of View, so bonus points there. Not quite long enough to get through a feature nomination, but ticks a good number of the requirements for such. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the support! I'd like to expand the scope at art, culture, film section covering news! I am trying to understand how to make an "original reporting", I mean being credited and so forth. Will read the instructions though...--FiloActual (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────┘
 We don't, as such, have bylines. What we use instead are hidden 'contributor categories', such as Category:Brian McNeil (Wikinewsie). Those allow you to keep track of articles you're the main contributor on, and do things like automatically build lists of articles you've had published. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

I made an edit suggesting use of wikilinks (the ones that use double-brackets, [[...]]) rather than external links to the wiki articles (that use single-brackets, [http://...]<nowiki></code>}} or {{nowrap|<code><nowiki>[https://...]). Not meaning to intrude; one doesn't freely edit other people's user pages, except in cases like vandalism, or if they put something up that an admin has to take down (advertising, usually).

You know, you could up that to two articles published on en.wn, because the latest one is your second; there's also Galician emigrant Rufino López receives 2013 Spanish-American International Award. --Pi zero (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can make the changes if you want in my page, no problem.--FiloActual (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Petition[edit]

See the asnwer here. Saskeh (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See the asnwer in you page in portuguese wikinews. Saskeh (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the asnwer about the page created.Saskeh (talk) 05:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the asnwer in you page in portuguese wikinews about here. Saskeh (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the asnwer in you page in portuguese wikinews. Saskeh (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have the possibility to increase the number of pages in Spanish wikinews, the sites below are Creative Commons (CC):

Saskeh (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RTVE's US correspondent gets condemnation for 'false accusations and offensive insults'‎[edit]

Are you partway through the process of adding some content to the article (since I see you added a source)? --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't pay too much attention to the new reference since it looks like a new -though very reasoned- critic against the way RTVE is managing the situation from the worker's POV, which obviously is not going to be too neutral since they are very low paid in comparison with Almudena. I think we could proceed now to the revision of the actual material. But that revision should be done by you because I cannot change the text more trying to follow your ideas of neutrality. I want to see how you do it.--FiloActual (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if we didn't use biased sources we'd have essentially no sources. The idea is to keep the peculiarities of each source in mind when looking at it. --Pi zero (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusions of the journalistic association cannot be considered biased source. --FiloActual (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can use the peculiarity of the new source, but it does not change the actual situation that requieres your editing of the new in order to advance to the POV you want.--FiloActual (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusions of the journalistic association are the conclusions of the journalistic association. The word "bias" is clumsy and imprecise. And no, I don't have a POV I want. My interest is in lack of POV. --Pi zero (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of POV is a POV, which can be considered "good standard". Does the new redaction meets that criteria? If not, can you show how to report those facts by helping with it? i tried to separate as much as possible the reported facts from the Wikinews's reporter POV. The facts, as you say, and you are completely right at it, are strong enough. Is it bad that we say that the correspondent are the best paid in RTVE? Why if it is true? But if it has to be cut from the new, let's cut it. --FiloActual (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. We can talk philosophy, and flaws with Wikipedia's notion of neutrality, later. I mean to do my best for the article as soon as I'm able. After that, we'll see. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I am trying to do during the last three days, my best at it. I don`t see any flaws in Wikipedia as long as facts that are news can be reported. I dont want to impose a POV to the way the new is published by Wikinews, on the contrary, it is the occasion to see how you do it by showing and seeing your adjustment to meet the lack of POV.--FiloActual (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've always been aware you were trying your best for it. That's why I've been investing so much in trying to help it along. --Pi zero (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I think also we are loosing too much time with the discussion about instead of finishing it. I really want to see which changes are necessary to the actual edition, or if I matched the criteria with the last changes.--FiloActual (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the right order of the cite at the title is, as it shows in the official website: 'offensive insults and false accusations' Just in case it makes sense to change the title to match completely with the quoted original text.--FiloActual (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what changed with the "update" on the 22nd? --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the whole previous text but the best way is to just read through the new one and adjust the new redaction to it.--FiloActual (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm, unavoidably, using the currently available version for source-check, yes. Admittedly, my foremost worry was that at midnight UTC tonight (in about 35 minutes) it would become difficult to justify calling it still fresh, and the "update" takes the anxiety out of that. --Pi zero (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the right order of the cite at the title is, as it shows in the official website: 'offensive insults and false accusations' Just in case it makes sense to change the title to match completely with the quoted original text.--FiloActual (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took the order from the body of the press release. They occur in opposite order there from the press release's title. --Pi zero (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just "cut" whatever does not work...? By stopping constantly we just are scarifying time instead of just getting the news ready according with your understanding of the sources. The article can work without that paragraph for instance.--FiloActual (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons. Primarily, because I'm unable to continue tonight anyway; a few years ago I could occasionally stay up all night to finish a review, but that's gotten a lot more difficult for me. Secondarily, although cutting material is a relatively "uninvolving" sort of change, it's best not to cut big chunks if one can avoid it. If I were able to stay up and continue now, I'd continue to the end of the source-check, and if that were the one remaining obstacle perhaps I would cut it and publish.
Btw, that new source seemed, to my very limited understanding, to be saying Almudena Ariza had responded. Unfortunately the nuances are all completely lost to me in translation, so I'm not at all sure. That seems the sort of thing that might perhaps warrant a mention (but since I'm not getting the nuances and might even be missing some of the basic meaning, I can only guess). Anyway, even if it's worth mentioning, and even if I knew for sure what it was saying on that point, as I may have remarked, I couldn't add it without disqualifying myself from publishing the article. For it to happen, you'd have to do it. --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did made adjustments. Please review them, now is ready for publishing I think. We are loosing to much time with this. --FiloActual (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reference is about the great differences of salary also between the correspondents. The average is 90.000 euros, but Almudena is in the VIP section, with almost 200.000 read it there

http://www.periodistadigital.com/periodismo/tv/2010/12/23/corresponsal-rtve-auditoria-2009-lorenzo-mila.shtml

well according with that source, she is among the 3 best paid workers of the corporation, alongside with lorenzo Mila and other person. They are paid almost 200.000 euros year. The article reads furthermore below: " la retribución media de la corporación de RTVE es de 91.944 frente a los 90.560 euros. " The average (for correspondents) oscilates between 91.000....--FiloActual (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did the translation of the news to Portuguese, I suggest you do this in Spanish. Saskeh (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will right away now. Thank you! --FiloActual (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeWater or FiloActual?[edit]

Sorry my question: you name/nick real is EdgeWater or FiloActual? Saskeh (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both work, but this one is more active. Thank you. --FiloActual (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FiloActual&oldid=3361203"