Talk:Standard & Poor's lowers the U.S. credit outlook to 'negative'

I was interrupted in the creation of this article by matters more important to wikinews than article writing. I will not be able to finish it. So please delete it. Mattisse (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Though I believe I understand the sentiment, it seems to me this doesn't fall quite within the purview of the SD "author request" criterion, which specifies no third-party edit history. --Pi zero (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

ok, let it linger there for a couple of weeks then. Mattisse (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an important story, and certainly isn't stale. Tadpole256 (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I know. It is a very important story. The ugliness of this site is depressing me. Mattisse (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the last story I'm going to write. But may as well finish it. Thanks for you help! Mattisse (talk) 23:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am always glad to help! I assume, you are not referring to aesthetic ugliness... I sure hope you don't mean you last article ever. Tadpole256 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed Source

I undid the your source removal Matisse. Only because I used it to support my comments about the potential risks of a decreased credit rating. I thought it might help lay people understand why this is so important. Is there a reason to remove it? I would certainly understand if there were an unwieldy number of sources, but I don't believe there are. What do you think? Am I off base? Tadpole256 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The data was a year old, too old for the fast moving events described in this article. This is a "snap shot article". Events will be all different in a few days. Using financial information from a year ago is misleading. If you find current info that would be good. Also, the wording was repeating the wording above in the article. Not good to repeat words. Sorry, I know you mean to be helpful and you are. Mattisse (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the importance of timely data. Although the fact it, these spending rates do not increase drastically in short periods. In this case, one year is timely, although I am working on a more current source. Tadpole256 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Spending Figures

The U.S. Congress is still bandying about the figure that 41 cents out of every dollar is borrowed. This information is not outdated. It is the current reality. Tadpole256 (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Give a source within the last few days. Also, how does it clarify the statement above: "Currently payments and interest on the debt consume more than 60 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and the amount only expected grow." Mattisse (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I just added an official report, dated today, and it clarifies the 41 cents on te dollar statement, which is what I was defending, although that statement supports the one you make above, so both are valid. Tadpole256 (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be great but it freezes firefox so I was unable to access it. It seemed to be adobe flash or something. I had to reboot my comuter. I have no trouble accesing pdf. Mattisse (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It works fine on my computer in FireFox, Chrome, and IE. Must be alocal problem, but you can look at the link and see it is legit.

Do What you Will

Do what you will, you just removed a source that was a report dated TODAY from the U.S. House of Representatives. It doesn't get better than that for a source. It was a .pdf. Do what you want, I have to make dinner, I will fix the article later. Tadpole256 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, that links freezes my compute and causes me to have to reboot. I am not in the best of moods right now, having been accused of being a sock puppet by a user whose name is not disclosed and without any evidence. That is thw way wikinews is. Mattisse (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. Tadpole256 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I gave in and left the source there. Mattisse (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

However, the source is dated January 19, but apparently the reviewer didn't notice. Mattisse (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)o

WN:3RR

Users involved in this article should understand the three-revert rule before editing further. Users are requested to use the talk page where possible. — μchip08 01:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1217246 [Failed]

Revision 1217246 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Article shall not be reviewed until edit war is resolved, between Mattisse and Tadpole256. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1217246 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Article shall not be reviewed until edit war is resolved, between Mattisse and Tadpole256. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

There was no edit war from my point of view. We disagreed over his addition of a source I could not open without my browser freezing. However, I gave in. Otherwise, he was adding a few things to the article and I was unaware he was editing. That was all, so it may have looked like an edit war. There was no disagreement on the content, just the source that I couldn't open.

However, if you want to fail the article, then go ahead. I will publish it it as there are no disagreements over that source now. I have given in. Do what you want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattisse (talk • contribs)

I'd like to point out that edit warring isn't a reason in policy for failing an article. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If people are going to fail articles over "edit wars" than Wikinews will forever maintain it's reputation for obscurity and being 2 days behind all other news sources. The reviewers on this site need to get serious about wanting to actually publishing news. Tadpole256 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a problem. If the concern isn't substantial, the article will be re-nominated. There indeed was a conflict which wasn't discussed, and it was unclear whether it was cleared up. The article has already been published, moving along... Gryllida 20:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no edit war from my point of view. We disagreed over his addition of a source I could not open without my browser freezing. However, I gave in. Otherwise, he was adding a few things to the article and I was unaware he was editing. With multiple tabs open, sometimes thw wrong version gets saved. That was all, so it may have looked like an edit war. There was no disagreement on the content, just the source that I couldn't open.

However, if you want to fail the article, then go ahead. I will publish it it as there are no disagreements over that source now. I have given in. Do what you want. Mattisse (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read the talk page above. There is no edit war. We disagreed over a source, an I gave in Otherwise, we were editing at the same sime an some of it may have looked like an edit war or a revert. But really it was not. There were no content disputes; just the problem over the source I could not open which was resolved.

Regards. Mattisse (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There was not an "edit war" and that is an asinine reason not to publish a LEGITIMATE news story anyway. Just like the people who would not Publish a legitimate business news story simply because they didn't like the fact that it dealt with Wal-Mart. I am finding the reviewers on WikiNews to be heavily biased, and many need to learn the written policies of WikiNews, and the intent behind those policies. WikiNews is based off of an amazing concept, and has a real chance to be great. But slow / biased reviewing is keeping this site a "day late and a dollar short". I made a correction on an article stating that an Osprey is Not a helicopter, but a tilt-rotor, and the reviewer refused to look at my link because it came from Wikipedia. 1) That is childish. 2) Anyone with a brain can identify the odifferences between an Osprey and a helicopter and just by looking at it you can see that it is a tilt-rotor air craft, because the rotors tilt! Who would have thunk it? But I see a lot of childishness going about, and I see there are a number of "cliques". For now, all I can do is continue to submit quality new articles. If WN fails to publish them in a timely manner, it will be your loss, I retain the right to publish my own work if you people sit on it too long. Tadpole256 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse, respond at your talk page about the "flash link", please. Your concern might be valid and wasn't discussed yet. Cheers, Gryllida^?? 03:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no flash link, it was an adobe PDF file from the U.S. House of represntatives. Tadpole256 (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1217592 [Passed]

Revision 1217592 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Very little copyedit required; whatever the dispute is on a source causing issues, it wasn't required for fact-checking this. 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 1217592 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Very little copyedit required; whatever the dispute is on a source causing issues, it wasn't required for fact-checking this. 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.

Thank you for a FAIR review! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tadpole256 (talk • contribs)

• I kept out of the debate on that source issue; but, would comment that any user who has issues opening a PDF should check their reader is fully up-to-date; if using Windows, boot into safe mode and run a full virus scan. I find it improbable in the extreme the US Govt would put something malicious in a PDF; however, a malfunction related to attempting to view a PDF may be signs of something on the system that locks up or crashes. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I changed the date on the pdf source as it was incorrectly listed as April 19 when the date was actually January 19. Mattisse (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The source is dated January 19, but apparently the reviewer didn't notice. Mattisse (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)o