Talk:Polar bears deliver environmental petition to Premier of British Columbia
Add topicI am the copyright holder of the text at: rbaxter.blogspot.com It is also Creative Commons licensed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B5baxter (talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 April 2009
- Can you link to the license statement? I looked at the blogspot entry and didn't see any copyright notices. --SVTCobra 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I found it here in the right hand side.
| “ | All text is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License unless otherwise specified. | ” |
— Rob Baxter
|
--SVTCobra 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ach, sorry for tagging it with copyvio. I didn't see any copyright notices on the blog page, so I automatically assumed it was copyrighted. My apologies! I'll try to look more carefully in the future. tempodivalse 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- - actually I just had that fixed on that blog page - I thought it was there but wasn'tB5baxter (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
My concerns with this is that "Rob's Ramblings" cannot be considered a reliable source. (Sorry, Rob). Is this original reporting? As in, you obtained the quotes directly? If you wrote your piece based on other sources, they must be listed in the sources for this article. --SVTCobra 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I tried looking for a mention of this story on both the Vancouver Sun and the Georgia Straight, but found nothing. Looking at your blog post, it seems you were there, and in which case you need to add notes, called "OR notes" in a new section on this page. Take a look at WN:OR for Wikinews' policy on original reporting. If you did any of your reporting by email, please forward a copy of any emails to scoop [at] wikinewsie [dot] org. Emails sent there will be reviewed by an Accredited Reporter (See WN:CV for a list of accredited reporters) and an accredited reporter will note on the talk page that they reviewed the email and found to be either accurate or inacurrate. Right now I would fail this story based soley on verifiability, but if you add OR notes or a source, it is an easy pass. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wacky news?
[edit]Does this qualify for Wackynews for the Polar bear bit? I kind of think so, but I might be alone on this. Calebrw (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Either way it needs a review. --216.75.93.110 21:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Review
[edit]  |
Revision 810458 of this article has been reviewed by brianmc (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No comments were left by the reviewer The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 810458 of this article has been reviewed by brianmc (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No comments were left by the reviewer The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |