User talk:Bencherlite

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, 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! 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
  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.

Tempodivalse [talk] 01:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Uni Category[edit]

I'm pretty sure that's a good category to have. If you can find any other articles in the archive that should have this cat stick {{editprotected}} on the talk page and say what category needs added. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Adding categories to old articles only messes up in a few minor places - such as importer bot pages. Most of the Dynamic Page Lists run off the Publish category, so top-level stuff is fine.
But, yes, if you can find any old articles use the template and they'll get it added. That doesn't qualify as a content change. Normally, I'd caution against creating a category until four or more articles can be identified, but I'm sure we have some older stuff mentioning Oxford. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd overlooked the date within the article, thanks for getting it! It's more important in the source and wikinews templates. Theory is, keep 'em all the same, unambiguous to anyone (no MM/DD/YY vs DD/MM/YY), and then it should be possible to have a program work with them if needed and not break when it hits a doubtful date. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm taking a break, someone will get the cats pretty soon. I need to chase round and see if any other Wikinews languages are in Google News. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    By the magic of DPL, they're listed on WN:AAA ;) --Brian McNeil / talk 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    Do you want to put people in the Oxford category? Obviously you only use the Ox.Uni cat where it's in/relevant to the article. Mentioning a graduate doesn't qualify unless also salient to the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Btw, for the wikinews importer bot, adding category=December 3, 2009 kind of defeats the point, as then the list will only display things from December 3, 2009. Cheers. Bawolff 21:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WMUK Press release[edit]

Did you decide to try Wikinews because of Mike Peel's press release? It'd be great to know we've got at least one contributor who hit the ground, er, sprinting as you did.

And, I'd suggest putting yourself up for Editor privilege in a day or two. I've seen people on the project for months and less savvy to writing in a news style. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


Good to see you around here. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews writing contest reminder[edit]

To keyboards!!

Time to get writing!

Points to remember

The competition page is here. Remember, you'll need to move from the newcomers to experienced section as the competition progresses.

Everyone who's new to Wikinews remind yourselves of the article guide and style guide. And, use the Enter an article tab in this template to correctly start your competition articles.

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation  Wikipedians! See here.
Getting Help

Possibly the fastest way to get help is to look for the regulars in the #wikinews IRC channel on Freenode. See this page for more details. Remember, many people will lurk, connected long-term, but not regularly checking for messages. Please be patient when looking for answers to queries, it can be annoying to see someone ask a question but leave before you notice it.

The usual places to look
Start here for competition-ready templates

Use this form to create a competition-ready article. Be sure to check the Main page and Newsroom to see you're not creating a duplicate. Please also add your article and point score to the log so that your score can be counted.

Good luck!

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar ... er ... barnbutterfly[edit]

I, Tempo, hereby award Bencherlite the Exceptional Newcomer barnstar for his excellent, in-depth contributions to the project. Keep up the great work! Smile.png Tempodivalse [talk] 13:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor status[edit]

Congrats! You have a new shiny... :) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just saw in rc you got editorship - congrats. Heres the standard template you get when you get editor:

Please take a moment to read:

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

Except you seem to already know what your doing. (and those pages are probably rather outdated too). In any case if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Good luck in competition. Bawolff 22:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Leads are quite lax. Basically the aim is to update them regurally. Some people feel that every story should have its 15 moments of fame in the lead. In general, the main lead, as you guessed should be of international interest, and generally a good article. If there is any original reporting stories, or interviews, they should be emphasized as well. Sometimes OR/interviews stay lead for longer then a plain synthesis article in order to promote them. Articles with pictures are preferred, especially those with relevant pictures related to the article as opposed to a stock map images. Wikinews:Make lead can help you change the leads (Gives you a list of articles to choose from that were recently published, click one of them, it geusses at what the lead should look like, often the geuss is good, sometimes it can use tweaking, you can modify its guess in the textbox provided, hit save to save it to the template). After reviewing an article, there is a make this article a lead button, which will also go to WN:ML.
As a general rule, if you review an article, unless its very short or barely passed review, replace the oldest lead with it. The lead templates are really no big deal, if you use common sense in updating them (and preview!), you should be fine. Hope that helps. Bawolff 00:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • My advice on reviewing is to look at any article itself before you go anywhere near the sources. Most will need copyediting, do so before you refer to sources. In the past dozen or so competition entries I've looked at I have seen people trying to use longer synonyms to 'pad' entries; this includes inappropriate synonyms, or sometimes homonyms. Beware use of words like "terrorist"; even Osama Bin Laden won't send Al Jazeera a tape saying "I am a terrorist", my rule-of-thumb is that someone can only be called a terrorist if found guilty of terrorism offences. Of, course, it could also appear in a quote; but, be careful that doesn't influence people to continue using it. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikinews Writing Contest 2010 Newsletter[edit]

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 04:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Writing contest newsletter: week 2[edit]

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 03:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Contest newsletter: weeks 3-4[edit]

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 22:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing Contest Newsletter[edit]

Supreme Court[edit]

I was thinking more obscure than that... Pakistan? India? Finland? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when...[edit]

... was playing poker a human right?

I have removed the category. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I'm surprised BRS put that on; I shall suitably chastise him. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Per your request, I've removed reviewer rights from this account. Hope you'll consider becoming more active again... C628 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Owen Edwards[edit]

Hi Bencherlite. I replied to you on the talk page for the Owen Edwards obit, I think I got my Welsh a bit squiffy. I understood enough to work out that he'd died and what I understood to have killed him, but I guess I wasn't quite "on the ball" :) Cheers for your help anyhow! BarkingFish (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome half-back[edit]

It's good to see you editing around a bit again over the last little while. I redid your rights; previously, we've only reconfirmed if rights were resigned under a cloud. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Nearly got them back unasked after I'd sighted the dozenth grammar correction on a lead. :p --Brian McNeil / talk 05:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your edits[edit]

Hello Bencherlite! I saw you talked about the article 'Bomb attack in Londonderry injures two police officers'. I am impressed with your edits! I am a new writer here, and have a few questions...

  1. how to find an appropriate category for a news article?
  2. how to write my best? (Please suggest your tips, please don't provide a link to go and search in.)

Thanks, --Sainsf :) (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

'Thankbacks'! Currently I'm working on a very short article '[killed in Burma ferry disaster]. Please review it. Thanks, --Sainsf :) (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Empty article[edit]

Hello and thanks for your tips. I'll expand the article, but somewhere it's written 30 are killed, while somewhere it's 19! what should i do? Also, i found an undisputed article, totally empty- 'Ashok'. What shall be done with it? --Sainsf :) (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

HMS Astute?[edit]

Don't we have any story about HMS Astute, such as its grounding on Skye? I can't find it with search. --InfantGorilla (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It got deleted as stale, I think... Bencherlite (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 :( There is no search engine for deleted articles. I think we have a serious problem finding enough people to keep up with the reviews. --InfantGorilla (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Royal Navy launches urgent inquiry after nuclear submarine runs aground in Inner Hebrides, incidentally. Bencherlite (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent 'drama'[edit]

I hope my recent contributions in an effort to defuse an unacceptable situation meet with your approval.

You may note the "post-mortem" item on a sub-page of Geoff's talk; your comments on that, subsectioned, would be most welcome.

Geoff starting on, what I felt was an attempt to lay groundwork for defence of later outbusts, isn't. A followup in the same form based on the actual version reviewed may reinforce that more-than-serious quality concerns existed; plus any remarks on xe's response to what I characterised as a "terse rejection"(see xyr talk).

Obviously I'd want my advice on WN:AAA considered, possibly given clear indication it meets with community consensus, and a strict interpretation and application of action suggested therein.

Would you concur? --Brian McNeil / talk 07:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

At Prophets predict the end of the world to 2011 may 21[edit]

This news was created in right May 21. If the review took to generate a notification at date, can not be my fault. -- Andrevruas (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

time-sensitive phrasing for leads[edit]

Hello. I saw your comments regarding my use of time-sensitive phrasing on the home page. I offer my sincerest apologies for this, as I understand that I have made an embarrassing error that has already been shown to a large group of readers.

I was already aware of the policy in question when I visited the Wikinews:Make lead page, but since this was the first time I've ever attempted to use the widget, I could not figure out how to replace the time-sensitive phrasing correctly. I did not attempt to fix the problem, since a warning message had informed me that permission to edit the page was denied. At first I thought the message was saying that my edit was not processed at all (i.e. does not show up in the revision history), but a subsequent comment by User:Pi zero led me to believe that my edit had indeed been processed, but still had not undergone the extra "sighting" process. I then checked the Main Page and saw that the new text had gone live already, so I thought everything was ultimately in order. It did not occur to me at that point to check for time-sensitive text.

Thus, it seems that I went through a series of missteps that individually might not have led us to the predicament I put us in earlier today (Saturday). I know this might not be a great excuse, but it's the best explanation I can give for what happened. I hope that the integrity of Wikinews is not severely hurt by this incident. Ragettho (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Women's British Open coverage[edit]


I've just read your comments on our news article on the first round of the 2011 Women's British Open. You've suggested for it to be merged with the one dealing with the second round events. If I had more time (I'm back from the course about 8pm, then start looking into computer about an hour later, yesterday I finished work at 1 am, got up at 6am :) ) I could endavour in that, but I was about to start working on the third round text, so probably the second round news is going to expire by that time without being reviewed first. I'm kind of confused - I don't want to spend effort of mine and of Crunch, who's kindly volunteered to help correcting my initial versions, to do things which end up for a large rebuild. What should I do ? Should I start the text on the third round and merge 1st and 2nd ones ? Or maybe wait until the championship finishes on Sunday and then prepare single text on all week's events ? In general my primary assignment is photography reporting from that event. I write texts so just the photos have a place to end up somewhere - maybe someone could take over the written part or at least prepare some agenda/coordination how to proceed with the whole thing ? Preparation to and writing consumes most part of my evening, so it would be an enormous relief for me if I could just focus on taking photos, their selection and postprocessing. Thank you in advance, Wmigda (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen you already having a look at the new "all-four-rounds-merged" article on Yani Tseng's victory. Is it going into right direction? I have a notion that more quotes from players' post-round interviews would make a nice expansion. Is it balanced - not too many info on other players, title would suggest that Yani should be a main focus ? I will be changing it into "review" stage today, so as soon I know what's wrong at this early staged than the better - expiration deadline is just round the corner :) Thanks, Wmigda (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Leave it to a bloomin' Yank like me.........[edit] quibble over such minutiae.......but, in the US, we (pretty much all regions) would be quick to say, "My mother is IN THE HOSPITAL." Not, "in hospital". ....and I can't imagine any of us every saying that mum is in "a stable condition". She would be, "....listed in stable condition." What with you Brits, however, being the copyright holders to English and all, your way really is certainly the most proper way (and I'm not being sarcastic)'s just everytime I hear the word, "English" I chuckle a bit, as there are SO MANY FLAVORS OF THAT HUGE LANGUAGE. Cheers!!  :] --Bddpaux (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Five accused of Delhi gang rape and murder plead not guilty[edit]

Computron remarked on IRC, when reverting the earlier edit, that xe was editing on a phone so it wasn't practical to write an informative edit summary. --Pi zero (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so that's ok then, is it? Wikinews editors and reviewers are free to write and publish articles with basic grammatical errors, to revert someone who points them out without explaining, and to revert the changes he makes to the headline on the main page to reintroduce a grammatical error? You personally feel free to revert and reinsert sentences with grammatical errors such as "The men, on Saturday filed in to the court room with their faces covered..."? No substantial changes were made in my edits - there was no change of content, simply elimination of grammatical errors and duplicate links. Quite why you accepted two changes but not the rest baffles me. Perhaps you ought to revert those as well, so that the original error-strewn publication can be seen in all its glory for all time. Bencherlite (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I accepted the first two changes in the latest batch because I could. The next change had some issues, and could have been modified somewhat... but with the piling on of additional edits, it ceased at that point to be feasible to deal with the edits individually. This is a well known difficulty when dealing via flaggedrevs with large numbers of edits coming down in real time. --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
So I should have made the changes all at once and risk having them reverted all at once again, you mean? Why not make the changes yourself of which you approve, if you think some of the rest have merit? Or edit the last version of the article I edited to undo the changes of which you disapprove, rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Bencherlite (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
At a certain point, the collection of edits became functionally equivalent to making them all at once, except for the extensive edit summaries (which should be quite useful if I eventually get a chance to come through them for archive-safe copyedits, which I of course hope to). A matter of untangling, which is at least in principle possible given the edit summaries. --Pi zero (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, so I'm more confused. When the story is archived and not linked from the main page, you might improve the grammar, but until then, you won't? Bencherlite (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Er? Oh, sorry. Ambiguous use of "archive". The archive policy, which doesn't allow substantive changes to the article and, well, discourages large copyedits (one goes for minimal fixes after that, like the comma splice I changed to a semicolon), kicks in 24 hours after publication. Anything that can be done after the article has been archived (which takes place at least a week after publication) can be done earlier than that. --Pi zero (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The article in question passed the review process, I do not understand the need to go making substantial changes. --Computron (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Reviewers aren't perfect. If there's a problem, and it's insubstantial and small enough to be allowed under the archive policy, we fix it. If there's a content problem, we can fix that with review by someone other than the person who submitted the fix within 24 hours, or if it's past 24 hours we'd issue a {{correction}} (which we're always sorry to do, but we're proud that we own up to our mistakes when we make them). --Pi zero (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
(e/c) "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." The problem here seems to be that you wrote, and the reviewer failed to deal with, an article with too many problems in the first place, and it's now too late to make it better. Perhaps read the edit summaries I left for each edit, and don't revert from a phone in future - if the changes aren't good, someone else will reject them. There's no need for you to do so, particularly when you don't see the problems you created in the first place, or when you can't explain your changes in an edit summary. FYI I sometimes edit from a phone and typing edit summaries is not impossible, particularly if you can apparently chat on IRC at the same time`. Bencherlite (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for reviewing and other assistance[edit]

Hi. Next week is the start of the IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics . This is part of an effort outlined at Wikinews:IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?[edit]

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. Unlike the previous version, points are available for people who conduct reviews. (With a University of Wollongong class currently contributing articles, extra assistance is appreciated at this time.) It presents a great incentive for you to renew your reviewing chops, contribute some original reporting not being done by the main stream media, and write some synthesis articles on topics that could use more attention. People should be around to review to prevent a backlog if you just want to write, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Make lead missing words[edit]

Drat. I even sat it coming when reviewing that article, that Make lead would miss the word "ultimatum", and just plumb forgot.

When we first started using {{w}}, any word linked with it in the lede would be skipped by Make lead. Then we got Bawolff to teach Make lead to understand {{w}}. Unfortunately it still doesn't understand {{wikt}} calls. In theory, I suppose I know enough javascript to fix it myself, in my copious free time. --Pi zero (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey-ho. Perhaps I'm the only one who ever reads the main page and notices such things - after all, this mistake had been there for over 21 hours... It's about the only thing I do at WN these days, I know, but I don't really have the time or interest to do anything more substantial, alas. Well done to those who keep the ship sailing with such a small crew, though (yourself included). Bencherlite (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We all wish we'd more time; I appreciate the persistence picking up on lead text snafus. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem. Or, as Cirt would say, no worries... Bencherlite (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The 4th amendment[edit]

You're quite right, of course; there should be a few words there explaining what the fourth amendment to the US Constitution is about. My bad. Though it was getting awkward to not-ready by the time I was able to review it, because it was going to effectively go stale if not published mighty soon. (At least I remembered to add "to the US Constitution"; as submitted, it just said "fourth amendment" without saying what it was the fourth amendment to.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yesterday, on the main page[edit]

Sigh. Make lead saves a colossal amount of work, but it's absurdly easy to overlook these things. I'm hoping my tools can eventually replace its old implementation with a more readily modifiable one, so we can add things like checks for the words "yesterday", "today", or "tomorrow". --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of my edits these days on Wikinews are to correct obvious errors on the main page. There are simply too many of them. To check the main page and see two out of five stories with errors... well. Relying on tools is part of the problem. People need to read what they are about to put on the main page before they click "save". People who have shown that they can't do that, repeatedly, ought not to be allowed to make leads. Bencherlite (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The alternative to a tool is doing it by hand. We have too much trivial crap that has to be done by hand, not too little.
The design of a tool can make a huge difference in what kinds of mistakes people make, though. When something is done by a tool, people are likely to get sloppy about checking what the tool has done; therefore, it can be dangerous to create a tool that gives you an approximation and then expects you to scrutinize it for problems. A tool that produces an approximation should either somehow force you to check the approximation, or have checks in it for all the likely problems. Or both, of course.
This sort of thing is why I'm putting really, really deep thought ahead of time into how I'll craft review-assistance tools. Doing it wrong could reduce one type of reviewer errors while increasing another type. --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Unrelated, they have done studies to make cars safer. They design roads to be safer. They do all these things to make them both work together. As they do these things, studies have found people modify their behavior in response and in the case of cars, the perception of safety allows them to take greater risk than they might otherwise be willing to do. You're unlikely to go 100 miles per hour on a narrow gravel road with trees and parked cars lining the road at night. A well paved road, a wide road with decent space on the side of the road, a car with airbags and really good breaks? You are more likely to go faster. That's what we get here at times. The problem is increasing the speed without creating a massive 15 car pile up. --LauraHale (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I should keep a list of who is making these mistakes; it might concentrate minds. Bencherlite (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Doubt it. I think the consequence would impact overall review willingness period, which would seriously depress the ability to get anything published. Hopefully, one or two comments on their talk page will make them think more. I have attempted to be very conscious on the main page to remove date words period, unless far in the future. (I don't think any of the recent problems with Makelead have been mine.) I'd need to see evidence that list keeping increased review / make lead performance as a function of reviewer retention.--LauraHale (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't even bother leaving messages on talk pages about "yesterday"-type mistakes, in case it comes across the wrong way; I assume that people will eventually see on their watchlist if they do it often enough... And you're right, I don't think I've corrected anything from you, Laura, for some time - so it can be done! Bencherlite (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I work hard at it too. The sheer number of the damn things I do adds up on me, though; the ones I catch don't get counted, only the ones I miss.
Beyond a certain point, it is't reasonable to say "I just have to be even more careful." There's a hardware store nearby that I visit about once a month, where it's really dangerous to make a left turn out of the parking lot. I was always very careful, but then came closer to getting killed on that turn than I ever had before in a car. My solution was to change the order in which I visit stores in that shopping center so that I always turn right coming out of that parking lot. --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I have a mental check list with makelead. The first thing is: What is the oldest story and is it OR? If OR, then consider selecting the second oldest story to replace. After that, remove all time and date words. As some one who writes about future events at times, putting "next week" will not work if an article appears in a slow period and stays for a week. Hence, easier to just identify and purge. I tend to try to be extra aware of the presence of date relative words because I have it on my checklist when reviewing to make sure these words ARE included in the first paragraph. If they are not, then we have a potential newsworthiness issue. One act reinforces the second act. (My problems are writing, and I feel really guilty on the Doctor Who won, because I wrote it expecting it to not get passed on the first shot. I never thought a reviewer would pass it. It just shows me I have to be a lot more careful, because erk erk erk. STILL not completely over that.) --LauraHale (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The way to consistently avoid that particular error is to tweak the (very scary) review gadget code so that it recognizes the {{wikt}} template. I'll try to remember to take a look at that later tonight (atm it's a more urgent priority to try to get a little more review in before midnight UTC). --Pi zero (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Aging leads[edit]

I really am glad for your catching confusing dated references in the leads. Though I don't agree it's "disguising". --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Someone comes to our main page, sees a story, and only when clicking through do they then realize it's a story that's a week or more old. What I'm doing is covering up the age of the story on the main page, so it is a disguise. Why, what do you think it is? (Did you think I'd typed "disgusting", perhaps?) Bencherlite (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
("discussing"? "discoursing"? "discursing"?)
We're probably going past each other on our views of the function(s) of the leads. To me the leads are an amplification of the set of most-recent articles; the most-recent articles serve multiple functions, one of which is presenting a reasonably broad sample of the project's work; and in times of slow output, that showcasing function waxes prominent — which, to me, carries over to the leads. My reading of the situation. <shrugs> --Pi zero (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

All our yesterdays[edit]

I look forward to replacing Make lead with a more readily customizable version; one of the first customizations I'd like to put in is something that squawks at the words "today" and "yesterday". (Might as well throw in "tomorrow" as well, but that's clearly a lower priority.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It was more an "oh dear" for the fact that the article had been kicking around the main page for 5 days with nobody else noticing or caring about either the redundant wording in the article and on the main page ("on Tuesday... yesterday") or about the forbidden word "yesterday" on the main page. Every time I look at the WN main page I seem to be able to find something wrong - am I really the only person who reads it? Perhaps some of our new inactive arbitrators might like to check in once in a while to do this - or such a contribution too much to expect of the ultimate powers on WN? Bencherlite (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
ArbCom is our court of last resort; judicial, neither legislative nor executive. Certainly not the ultimate powers.
I suspect any casual passer-by noticing a problem in one of the leads wouldn't be able to figure out where to fix it. Which is an instance of a general difficulty of the wiki software I'd like eventually to address somehow. --Pi zero (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikinews: the website that nobody reads, governed by the people who never edit. Sounds appropriate. And if anyone noticed a problem, I'm sure they could find a way to point it out, even if they couldn't fix it - and if the regular editors here can't work out how to fix it, then, well... Bencherlite (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, they read our articles, when they're published and when they're in our archive. Somebody (I forget who) recently had iirc a list of dead professions, and newspaper deliverer was one of them; people no longer get their news from one print newspaper, dividing communities into the Tribune folks and the Globe folks, or whatever. They also don't do the on-line equivalent: as a rule nobody gets all their news from one on-line source, nor should they; they use a news aggregator. Should we want to produce lots more output? Hell yes. Hence my software development project. Which, you know, goes slowly in part because I reckon when you build software that's meant to go at the very base of a massive structure, you should get the details right.
Anyway, your help, from time to time, with fixing stuff on the leads really is appreciated, even if you do sometimes seem to have an even gloomier outlook than I (and one of my childhood nicknames was "Eeyore"). --Pi zero (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you[edit]

mind explaining why you rejected my text change? I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I see the system swallowed the last bit of my edit summary: " Articles which have been published for more than 24 hours should not undergo significant edits" (WN:ARCHIVE). Adding further information and a new source is a significant edit. Once news stories are published, there's a very limited window to supplement them with additional information as this is a news site not an encyclopaedia. Bencherlite (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Morning's crop of corrections[edit]

Thanks for catching the Monday/Tuesday thing. Although I'm not sure how I made the original mistake, I'm pretty sure my confusion over your correction was due to it being so obvious the correct date was Tuesday that, fresh out of sleep, I got tangled up over which version was the original and which was the correction. (Although the wiki software has gotten increasingly unreliable about presenting the correct versions of things, lately; my guess is in this case it didn't add to the already-sufficient confusion.)

But... unacceptable Americanism? I maintain Scotland is not part of the American supercontinent. :p --Pi zero (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

An excellent demonstration of the fact that, despite some views to the contrary, I am by no means an expert in the legal field. I view this as a grammatical error (as opposed to a content dispute) and so I see no problem sighting it. Done, thanks. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Thankyou for the copyedits, despite the venting of frustration (frustration, at least, is something I understand). --Pi zero (talk)

It's unfortunate that the article was published with so many problems but at least they're now fixed. The sacred archiving policy preventing a sentence being moved up to the lead paragraph to explain why Spurs and Chelsea drawing means that Leicester won the title is... unfortunate. But there we are. Bencherlite (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Mats Hummels completes Bayern signing[edit]

Hey, I wondered if you could review the article? The signing took place few hours ago. Currently, the review queue has ten articles. This one won't take much time. I can wait for this article to be reviewed, but if it can be reviewed quickly, it will be great. Pi zero reviewed an article this morning which took almost two hours.
acagastya ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)