Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2011/June

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2011. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.


I'd like to start a wikinews column...

sure - I can do this through my blog, but can I publish from wordpress to this wiki automatically, or, how can I create a column on this site, in audio and written format, and then create it in the appropriate architecture? Do you have an editorials or column area of the online news?

Colleen aka subamerica

Wikinews doesn't accept columns, unfortunately. :( I'm actually also a blogger, and I, too, was hoping to contribute similar content here. But no, Wikinews does not accept editorials or maintain columns. What you could try to do is write a neutral article about a news event, and then mention the views of various bloggers, including yourself. Ragettho (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that wouldn't be okay either. See WN:COI (as well as WN:NPOV). --Pi zero (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Past performance as an indication of the future

  • Question Would someone please remove the above sections which are taken, verbatim, from the still-open dispute resolution between myself and Mattisse? Their reiteration here is not helpful. Additionally, please highlight to Mattisse that it is the same Dispute Resolution reopened; says so at the top of the page.

Additionally, I note Mattisse claims an email "whispering campaign" tells her how horrid I am - obviously urging her to act-out as above. I'm perfectly aware who the chief culprit will be, so what are the community's thoughts on that user being blocked from using email through the wiki?

Lastly, Mattisse has attempted to subvert the Dispute Resolution by emailing the administrator who reopened it, then apparently acted contrary to stated intentions in said email.

Would other contributors who have received email from Mattisse care to give general feedback on such? --Brian McNeil / talk 06:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re whisper campaign — it seems you're only guessing at identity; any form of block would require better evidence than that.
I've had no recent email from Mattisse; her last public statement about me that I know of was an accusation of trying to discredit her, so it's plausible she wouldn't consider me a potential ally at the moment. It's no secret she and I have had email contacts from time to time in the past. --Pi zero (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response

There is no e-mail whispering campaign. That is part of you paranoia. I emailed (who recused because of it) and Gryllida as I wanted some advice as to what I should do. Neither answered my email. I emailed BarkingFish without knowing that he was the admin in charge. If I had know that, I certainly would not have emailed him. There is not an evil intention in every action I take, believe it or not. I emailed him asking for advice because I trust him and there is no way to get help here at wikinews. Any editor that get targeted by Brian McNeil is thrown to the wolves. I will no longer ask for any advice from anyone to avoid more attacks and insinuations from Brian.

He accused me of being a meakpuppet a while ago. To what end I don't know. What have I done that is the least meatpuppety?

Mattisse (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His "whisper campaign" remark did not suggest you were engaging in it, Mattisse; he said you'd described it. (You did mention your email being quite full.) Those running the whisper campaign would then be using you to promote their agenda. Technically, that's meatpuppetry — confusingly so, perhaps, because usually a meatpuppet is viewed as an equal partner in crime, rather than a victim. --Pi zero (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thak you for clarifying PiZ, that is precisely it; Mattisse's claim that others were pritately telling xe how they might, or might not, interact with me could be described as a "whispering campaign" or meatpuppetting; I'm glad Mattisse has confirmed that my prior suggestion of such was not-at-all far from the mark. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of the story from an ordinary person in Syria

This looks like interesting info, I'd hate for it to be lost. Perhaps it can be incorporated as WN:OR into another article somehow? -- Cirt (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks mostly not that useful. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with getting article to appear in the Newroom

My article Court rules Massey can appeal US restrictions in Upper Big Branch Mining disaster investigation shows up in the "Disputed" section of the newroom, even though it has not been disputed. I did rename the article to fit the content of my rewrite. Instead the article appears in "Disputed" under its old name, Report: Massey Energy to blame for mine blast that killed 29. How do I fix this? Thanks in advance for any help. Mattisse (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct article name appears in the review queue. What the newsroom's problem is, I have no idea; refreshing and even null-editing doesn't clear it. I have a feeling deleting the redirect won't help either, but we can try, and see what happens. --Pi zero (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, it is in the newsroom now. Thanks! What is the review queue? Is it separate from an article's placement in the newsroom? Mattisse (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears at the top of Category:Review (with javascript on).
In practice, I usually get there by starting at Special:RecentChanges, where at the top there are a couple of lines' worth of different kinds of "votes" pending. One of those is "Articles needing review", and the number there links to Category:Review. --Pi zero (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That is good to know. Mattisse (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deserving human interest safety item, When No Article offered can I suggest one worth writing.

The following news Item in Vietnam deserves publishing for public safety awareness warning, particularly as tourists to lovely Vietnam brooks, streams & waterfalls encourage one to tast the fresh water reputed so noce and naturally clean. It may not be so safe.

Recent story as published on net a few days ago was:-

Giant leech removed from man's throat in Vietnam Jun 14, 2011 www.monstersandcritics.com

<Copyright violation removed by DENDODGE 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)>[reply]

--Robbygay (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)--Robbygay (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While that story seems interesting, Wikinews only publishes stories in which substantial new information has come to light in the last 2-3 days. So, unfortunately, your article would be considered "stale" and deleted. However, thank you for your suggestion! Wikinews is a wiki, so anyone can write or edit any article (in accordance with our policies and guidelines). Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. We would welcome your interest, and if you come across a story with two or more reliable sources from the last two or three days, please feel free to write about it. You should have a handy welcome template on your talk page - that will serve as a brief but very useful introduction to Wikinews. DENDODGE 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct to redirect an article like this?

The redirect of an article I wrote to Former government minister Nyiramasuhuko convicted of genocide? Please see [1] Should it not have been a merge, since both were in the Newsroom "Submitted for peer review" queue at the same time?

All my hard work and extra information is wiped out by the redirect. And my pictures, quotes, and many wikilinks? And my much fuller explanation of the situation.

These are the two articles: Former government minister Nyiramasuhuko convicted of genocide and Former government minister Nyiramasuhuko convicted of genocide

What are the opinions of others, please? Are we not aiming for comprehensive articles? Regards, Mattisse (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have confused your links; you wrote an article under a completely different name: Rwandan becomes first woman convicted of genocide by UN court. I'm not sure exactly how reviewers normally rectify this sort of situation, though. Ragettho (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. The article Rwandan becomes first woman convicted of genocide by UN court was written entirely by me, if you check the history. But it was redirected to Former government minister Nyiramasuhuko convicted of genocide, not written by me. Could you explain what you mean? Mattisse (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The former article was never redirected to the latter article. The latter article was written by Belovedfreak, and Blood Red Sandman changed the name of that article for clarity. But what's done is done, and (if I am not mistaken) it now looks like that your version of the article will have to be incorporated into the article that Blood Red Sandman approved. Ragettho (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that an article can be significantly changed for the first 24 hours after publication, provided no sources are introduced that are dated after the article's date of publication. So it's still possible to merge information into a published article within that 24-hour window. In this case, the published article you link to was published at 1658 today, which means significant changes to it can be peer-reviewed for possible publication until 1638 tomorrow.
It is, admittedly, less convenient to make significant edits to a published article, since one doesn't really want to make intermediate edits. But it is possible. --Pi zero (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more explicit how this is done? Did you look at the two articles? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will try to do as I think you are saying, since there is such a time limit! Mattisse (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is an article on the main page getting no page hits?

Scientists discover 300 new species on island of Luzon in the Philipines has been on the main page for a while now but has gotten zero page hits.[2] Is there a reason for this? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's an artifact of how that site counts. Contrast {{Popular articles}}. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Evidently it's more about when stats.grok.se updates its displays; it now shows 51 hits for yesterday. --Pi zero (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Popular articles, it updates by the hour. Last hour, the article was #1 and received 83 hits.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stats page you linked to updates once a day. It can't, therefore, show today's stats as today isn't yet over and so it's still busy counting. It will display today's hits sometime tomorrow. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance/archives/2011/June&oldid=1266842"