User talk:Blood Red Sandman/archive 5

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

Aerospace and defense news[edit]

(Contingent of serious hardware issues being solved - good luck!)

BRS, I'm seriously considering contributing here due to several issues related to WP. However, I do have some questions, which any of your "lurkers" may seriously respond to.

WN covers "current events. What happens to stories that become "stale"? Are they simply deleted, or is there an "archive"? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a lurker with nothing better to do, I'm going to butt in here. I hope BRS doesn't mind, although I imagine he'll have something to contribute once his hardware issues are fixed.
Stale articles are deleted, as things stand. There are a few contributors who think a different approach would be preferable - publishing with a different date, for example. But policy is to just delete them, unfortunately. If there's a particular stale story you're interested in, an administrator such as myself or BRS would be happy to provide you with a copy of the most recent revision (in the majority of cases - some articles also contain personal information &c which should not be seen by non-admins). DENDODGE 10:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dip online very briefly, using a rather poor substitute machine, so I can answer that: Generally, yes, they are deleted if you mean "stale" in the way we do, which is what Den's talking about. We have a slightly odd system, whereby articles are written, and then reviewed by an independent trusted user. If an article becomes stale without ever passing a review, it is never published and hence never goes via the main page. For those articles which are published, however, they are 'anchored' to the date of publication. They can only be updated for the first 24 hours after that - then, any new information goes in a new article. These articles aren't considered stale - after one week, they are protected, although minor changes can be requested. In that respect, we do have an archive. We do this because articles are meant to be a 'snapshot in time' - so updating old articles would be considered editing history itself, hence the requirement for a new one each update.
Of course, if a user wanted to keep an article they worked on but that never made the grade, it can be put in their userspace. I hope that all makes sense to you; glad to see you thinking of coming over (which reminds me... you suggested I get in touch with another user 'bout that on WP, must remember to do so). Wikinews:Archive conventions relates to this, but hopefuly you get the idea from my little spiel. You may find Wikinews:For Wikipedians more helpful; or, maybe not - I'd appreciate feedback on wether that page actually was any use, actually. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the extra sight review at Dan Savage wins Webby Award for It Gets Better Project — I thought those external links were a minor addition, but whatever, no worries. -- Cirt (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for over sighting my little additions to the Kevorkian article! Mattisse (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review and possibly help[edit]

Could you please review and (possibly) assist me with my latest Wikinews article? It's called Scottish singer Jai McDowall wins fifth Britain's Got Talent series. If I've made any mistakes, please do try to help me to rectify them as far as possible. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for offering to be my mentor. I appreciate any comments or criticisms you may make. I welcome your input from you on any issue. Please give me any feedback you feel comfortable giving me.

Do you think it would be OK if I apologized to BarkingFish? I didn't email him in his admin role; I really wasn't thinking that way. But I regret that I muddied the waters by an ill-considered email written when I was upset.

Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be fine, yes. I'm sure Barking would appreciate it. As I said, I think the best general advice I can give you is to back down and do something else for a while whenever you feel upset.

I'm hopeful this can be made to work; certainly, I feel it worth trying. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mattisse (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re your edit to Court rules Massey can appeal US restrictions in mine disaster investigation[edit]

I don't think this edit is correct:[1]

From the New York Times May 19, 2011,[2] referring to the report the article was originally about:

  • "The report, released on Thursday by an independent team appointed by former Gov. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and led by J. Davitt McAteer, a former federal mine safety chief, echoed preliminary findings by federal officials that the blast could have been prevented if Massey had observed minimal safety standards." So I don't think it is quite correct to describe it as "MSHA's independent investigators". Or am I wrong? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are confusing; traditionally, government investigative agencies are supposed to be independent; hence, I was reading independent report as being MSHA's. This is an international standard, best implemented in aviation. I'm most familiar with commercial air accident reports. Close re-read suggests to me there are three reports either released or in production; MSHA's, the "independent" report (note: Given the political nature of some of the claims made, I'd suggest anyone appointed by a politician cannot be said to be independent), and Massey's report. I suggest the article be clarified to reflect there's three of these things out there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, if you can see your way through all that! The original article was on just one report, reported by the New York Times May 19 as I recall. And the quotes added by the original editor were from that report, I believe. Mattisse (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hard time with Weiner[edit]

Hey Blood Red Sandman. Thank you so much for reviewing the article on the Anthony Weiner scandal. It's very much appreciated! Ragettho (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help to change username[edit]

Hello, I've changed my user name on English Wikipedia but i didn't do same on WikiNews, now i want do same, if it's possible please change my user name (فرامرز دانا) to Faramarz , Thank you. --فرامرز دانا (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had patience, I don't know why in English projects no one answer, i asked three user because they didn't answer me (first user i have asked did not answer and i found that the second user wasn't a bureaucrat!) but anyway your answer was very perfect (i don't know how describe it!), i hope Wikimedia change these Inappropriate rules. --فرامرز دانا (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why?[edit]

Why is my new article Clarence Clemons, Springsteen’s E Street Band sax player, dies at 69 getting no hits at all? Can't figure it out! It's not a redirect or anything. Can it be that no one at all is reading it? Mattisse (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect it is getting hits, and the bot is failing to add it onto the template... It could be due to the ’ - IIRC every so often we used to stumble accross random characters that weren't covered by it. We normally use ' so it could have simply slipped by undetected. I'll suggest that to Bawolff, who runs the bot. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I change the name to Clarence Clemons, Springsteen's E Street Band sax player, dies at 69? I didn't realize that issue. Mattisse (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't; that would cause a duplicate entry on various feeds. There's another way of doing it - go to history, and there's a little link marked page view statistics. That shows daily stats, but today's aren't up yet. Check back tomorrow and it'll show maybe ~2,000... Hopefully. Also, if I am right about what the cause is, Bawolff will hopefully sort that out very quickly i.e. next time he's online. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did check history and it showed 45 hits for June 19.[3] Mattisse (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; on the nineteenth (yesterday). It was published today, so we'll have to look tomorrow to see if there's any kind of decent count; developing articles are effectively internal things that aren't public-facing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be argumentative (please tell me if I am), but why shouldn't I just change it so Bawolff doesn't have to worry about it? Or if the article gets a new name at this point, will that screw things up? Mattisse (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, post-publish moves create duplicate entries on things like the Twitter feed. And, if we leave the bot unfixed it'll just happen again sometime. :p If it's not the bot, it will indicate a much bigger problem :/ (I would say you're more inquisitive than argumentative... Also, being argumentative is not always a bad thing :p). As luck would have it, he's just popped onto IRC, so we'll soon find out. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...RIA Novosti celebrates...[edit]

Thank you very much for your help! Lvova (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please help[edit]

My article was redirected to an article you approved,[4] Former Rwandan government minister Nyiramasuhuko convicted of genocide. My article is (was) Rwandan becomes first woman convicted of genocide by UN court and contains much more complete information, wikilinks, pic etc. Look at all the wikilinks I looked up to explain the article further. This does not seem right. Shouldn't it at least be a merge? Isn't wikinews aiming for comprehensive, informative articles and not only the bare bone articles? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you want me to do here. Nothing is stopping you performing a merge, or otherwise adding to the original article. Redirecting new duplicate -> older original is somewhat standard; amongst other things, it leaves the history intact for users to do just that. Nothing has actually been lost. There's no real alternative to redirecting; we can't publish the same article twice over! Ideally, you should usually check round for such articles before you start, and work on those that exist if they are there - though in this case, the title wasn't especially clear pre-move, so I'm not surprised you didn't spot it.
Redirecting has to occur at some point, and as nothing's lost in doing so it's helpful for people to get on doing it. As I say, feel free to transfer details etc from one to the other. In reading the sources, I found a wealth of detail I'd have liked to have seen in the one I approved, but I lacked the time to work on it myself. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is bad, confusing and misleading. Can it be redirected to Rwandan becomes first woman convicted of genocide by UN court which is much more direct and doesn't contain unnecessary words like the minister's name, which doesn't ring a bell with anyone, IMO. Mattisse (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the title as it stands, actually. Rwandans, Tanzanians and those familiar with the events will have heard of her; the rest of us get clarification. Now, to take a look at this merge before time runs out. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did check carefully for an article on the same subject before I started. I didn't see it, probably because the title was a little obscure to me (although I had researched the sources before starting) and I missed it. Or for some reason it did not show up in the Newsroom. I didn't look other places. Is there somewhere else I should look for such articles? Mattisse (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Special:NewPages, which is quite well filtered to only display proper mainspace articles (ie no redirects etc). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but anything without Rwanda or Rwandan in it (the most important key word) wouldn't have caught my eye. The name of the "government official", or even that the person was a "government official" would not have either as other "government officials" have been convicted in the past. "Government officials" can be of any level, not necessary high. The name "Nyiramasuhuko" is not one known to most of the world and I didn't even consider it in the title and wasn't looking for it. When I saw the two articles there, after mine was in the "Submitted for peer review" queue, I considered putting a merge tag on, but I assumed that was the Reviewers role to do. Perhaps the Reviewer didn't see any similarities in the article titles to do so. Next time I will plaster a "merge" on right away, as soon as I read the article and realized it was on the same subject. (I read articles in the queue as a matter of practice). Mattisse (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌───────────────────┘
 Comment You don't need to be a reviewer to switch a review template to {{develop|I am going to expand this and will put back in the review queue shortly}} (forgive breaking the interaction ban, I feel this will be useful advice in avoiding this situation in future). --Brian McNeil / talk 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Hi Blood, noticed you reverted the cat I added. The cat seems relevant. (I'm watching your page) Lionelt (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we delete the portal and keep the category? Afterall, there is a Category:Libertarianism... Lionelt (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
also Category:Nationalism Lionelt (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am loathe to cite policies and guidelines not written specifically for this project, but I will make an exception and cite w:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as, while the examples given are (obviously) Wikipedian in nature, the logic is set out carefuly and essentially applicable over here; and, I agree with it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:ZéroBot[edit]

Hi ! You've recently blocked my bot here with this comment : « Appears to be an unapproved bot; if you wish to run the bot here, approval can be sought at WN:BOT (limited exceptions are detailed at WN:GB) » … whereas :

  1. My bot is a global bot (verify)
  2. I didn't plan to run the bot on this wiki.

So, can you please unblock him ? Regards, Toto Azéro (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Have I made too many edits here to review the article?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no easy answer to that. I looked very carefuly over the changes you made; reviewers are generally granted some leeway to play around with copyedits etc. The key point for me was where you had chenged information you left the content still along the same lines as it was before, just updated slightly. Therefore, I'm going to call it as a 'you can review'. Thanks for asking, though; it's a bit of a grey area and I'm glad you kept it in mind. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs)
Okay. Thanks for the response.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has something changed?[edit]

Now when I hover over a diff on the recent changes list a dysfunctional screwup pops up and not the normal, informative informational popup. This doesn't happen on wp or other wiki sites. Has something changed with the css code or something here? Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, are you using Lupin's popups, or are you just looking at normal title text (Aka what you'd see if you're not logged in). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have Lupin's popups checked under "Gadgets". I'm always logged in. But if I log out, there are no popups. (ugh!) Mattisse (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not seeing any js errors, and the popups on the rc look normal to me when i hoover. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hey[edit]

I'm actually a really nice person i just get really bored. Plus I probably hold the position as the worst troll in wikinews history. So yeah lol. sorry bout the trolling!! =) K!ttiesonf!reFOREVER! (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines and U.S. hold naval drills in South China Sea amid territorial dispute[edit]

I checked the entire article, and I think it meets the standards. But since you have failed the article, what further steps do we have to take now to resolve this conflict? Ragettho (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised the article to address your concerns. I don't plan to review the article, since I'm busy at the moment. But for future reference, would I be allowed to review the article in similar circumstances? Ragettho (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to William above, that's a grey area - reviewers, traditionally, are granted some leeway to make changes in the course of fixing up pre-publish. I'd say you'd significantly changed the details, so I'd say no on that particular article. However, if you need to ask, you could argue it either way. Possibly a guideline might be in order. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, moving further on reviewing matters[edit]

Hello Blood Red Sandman. First of all, thank you so much for nominating me for reviewer status! Now that the request has passed, I look forward to working with you and all other reviewers. Although I experienced a minor hiccup regarding the Philippine/US territorial dispute article (it's a good thing you checked the article in time!), I hope this isn't indicative of my future performance as reviewer. All the best, Ragettho (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is, as you rightly say, a minor hiccup... It was quite a subtly hidden problem, and on another day it could have slipped past me, too. I wouldn't worry yourself over it. :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Would you mind reviewing the article? Two reviewers have already gotten involved, unfortunately. Ragettho (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time right now - I've been busy all afternoon, and probably will be again this evening. I'd rather hoped to write an article myself, too, but that's looking doubtful. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Edit Bot[edit]

Hi,

I just noticed that you blocked my bot here before it did a edit, i only created a global account. Is there a specific reason why is blocked? The bot will do uncontroversal edits outside the main namespace.

Best, Dirt Diver (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: The bot doesn't comply with WN:GB. Regardless of what 'uncontroversial' means - if it's only interwikis or double redirects, it will be allowed once it has a track record elsewhere - the bot, as you say, has not made an edit. Not only do we not know what it does, we do know it has no track record of doing it. You will either need local approval or to build up a track record of interwiki maintenance and/or double redirect fixes.

I understand our bot policies are very strict, perhaps even annoyingly so - but they exist because we've had issues with problematic bots in the past, and on a small wiki they can wreak havoc. Often, when people create a bot - especially a global one - they intend to run it without checking local policy, so I block in advance to prevent them being run. It isn't iseal, but unfortunately there's no alternative that I'm aware of.

Hope all this helps. If you don't like it being blocked, I can happily remove the block so long as you promise not to run the bot unless and until it meets these requirements. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I just editted my config file, currently en.wikinews is marked as "skip" the bot will do no edits on this project until all local policies are being followed. If its not a problem it would be nice if you removed the block for now, the block is making my bot throwing errors at me ;-)
Best regards,
Dirt Diver (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

Why did you delete Jesus Is Coming? Surely the second coming of a deity would be massive news? We should be the first outlet to cover this glorious event. — μchip08 09:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Senate postpones vote on Libya conflict to focus on national debt[edit]

Thanks for approving the article, and for reviewing my added edit. Ragettho (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reverting edits of Glavkos bot[edit]

I see that you have blocked User:Glavkos bot indefinitely and reverted its edits. I don't know your policy about bots, maybe it's ok here to block every new bot that has made 8 or 0 edits. I can see also that this bot removed a valid link to fa in its first edit, so this edit should be undone. But reverting valid edits, that's another thing. Some new portals have been created on Greek wikinews and I see no reason for deleting the iws pointing to these pages. Regards, --Flyax (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You created a bot, failed to declare, didn't seek the most basic of permission and ran it without even anouncing who owned it. Such is incredibly disruptive; this is why I block new bots - to stop people like you before they get started. If you cannot be bothered to do any of that, then I certainly see no reason to carefuly check foreign language interwikis - especially when some of the edits change and/or remove existing information without explanation. The bot was clearly not even working properly, and so all its edits were summarily dismissed without further checks. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was not my bot. So, I don't know who you are referring to with the expression "people like you". One thing for sure: I don't like your tone, so I'm not going to address you any more. I just hope that you'll be more careful in the future and that you will abide by one of all wikis' constitunional rule: asume good faith. Farewell. --Flyax (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank God for that - I don't like your tone. If it is not your bot, I suggest you refrain from trying to manage it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, assume good faith is chiefly a Wikipedia policy/guideline. See meta:Assume good faith. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor WP hack[edit]

Could you port my user and talk MediaWiki:Common.css from here to enWP?

And, add the following: 

#p-logo  a
{ background-image: url('http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Wikinews-logo-en-0-red-150px.png') !important;
 }

I'd like to have a more unified look between my page there, and here, and it should be amusing to see the reaction. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 16:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glavkos bot[edit]

What was the problem ? Glavkos (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple problems:

  1. The bot was being run without approval, in breach of WN:BOT
  2. The bot was being run without any kind of userpage identifying it, in breach of WN:BOT
  3. The bot was malfunctioning: I count one valid link removed and two other links removed without mention in edit summary and therefore presumably removed unintentionally, or at least misleadingly, in eight edits to give a whopping error rate of at least 37.5%.

For all these reasons, the bot was and remains blocked. Bots can cause havoc on small wikis, which is why we insist on them being approved properly. Unapproved bots editing namespaces with FlaggedRevs enabled also create vast amounts of work very quickly, and in any namespace an unapproved bot will flood recent changes. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ..all these are reasonable and acceptable. What is the procedure to reverse the block? It is the first time in my whole wikihistory that I have been blocked. I know that ignorance is not accepted but I hope the inconvenience to the community here was not that serious finally. Just tell me what else to do (I created the bot page and put a petition for permission). All the best, Glavkos (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. It is from the community that I am waiting the permission. Glavkos (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, promise you won't run the bot unless and until you get permission at WN:BOT. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...I have already deleted long ago the en.wikinews line on my interwiki.py file. Glavkos (talk) 17:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'll go lift the block straight away. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about Crochet.david.bot (t · c · b)[edit]

Hello. What you believe to be a robot not appropriate is just my robot with which I create all the account in accordance with the SUL system.
It's not because I create an account that it will actually be used on this project.
But just in case one day it would work poorly on another project and that it would inadvertently EN.WN work, at least you know who is the owner and so contact me.
Crochet.david (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Unblock[edit]

Hello - as User:AvicBot is now a global bot, would you mind unblocking it please? -Avicennasis (SWMT) 22:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may unblock it unilaterally, but can you specify what is its purpose? Thank you, アンパロ Io ti odio! 23:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. AvicBot on EnWn (here) will only fix double-redirects. (Which don't happen too often here, anyways, so you'll hardly ever see him.) I'm not running the interwiki tasks on any Wikinewses'. -Avicennasis (SWMT) 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, unblocked, as B-R-S apparently won't be back for some more time. アンパロ Io ti odio! 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) -Avicennasis (SWMT) 23:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GhalyBot[edit]

Good evening It seems that you have blocked GhalyBot. It is a Global Bot , to avoid any problems I will apply for a local Bot flag for it here. Would you mind unblocking it? Many thanks.--Ghaly (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and it seems fine, sorry to have bothered you with that. --Ghaly (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That account doesn't seem to be registered on this wiki. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back[edit]

Can you prevent a case of Internet assassination by re-educating Mattisse before myself or BarkingFish ban for 666 years? --Brian McNeil / talk 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm willing to try to help Mattisse. First, though, I'll need to educate myself on the latest fun. I'll maybe dig into that tonight. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umpteenth "I'm leaving" toys-out-pram on Talk:Main page; copying disruptive stuff from there to the Water Cooler (summary: Shit-stirring); "baiting" on WN:AAA with kindergarten comments about me not signing each individual paragraph. Posting nonsense about xyr socking which provoked my asking for xyr to be checkusered (subsequent to me having to beg stewards to clear our CU backlog with no local CUs being available).
Education should, I feel, be provided with a sharpened clue-by-four. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union contacts[edit]

I don't know anyone off the top of my head in the SNPL...the closest in the UK would be Unite, which BALPA is a part of. --81.100.247.174 (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unionzzzz? I haz some contacts. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blood Red Sandman/archive 5. You have new messages at User talk:Rayboy8#Glasgow HGV accident.
You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

Hello, Blood Red Sandman/archive 5. You have new messages at User talk:Rayboy8#Glasgow HGV accident.
You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

Wikinews interviews Andy Martin, U.S. Republican Party presidential candidate‎[edit]

Thank you for the review. I don't know about another article on the subject though. Frankly, I'm tired of dealing with Mr. Martin.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review U.S. Presidential candidate Fred Karger denied place at Fox News debate, 4:00 is getting near.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go take a look right now. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It is appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews:Changing username bump?[edit]

Hi there, was wondering if you could possibly deal with my request over at Wikinews:Changing username? Been waiting for a few days now and I must admit I'm getting rather impatient, especially considering my username at the moment. (Trying to move away from using it online as much as possible...) Would really appreciate it, thanks! AllynJ (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review request[edit]

Excuse me, Blood Red Sandman? I would like to ask you to review my latest article, Fiona Donnison jailed for murdering children. I would be grateful if you could. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bug you Blood Red Sandman but could you please review another article of mine? It's called Three killed amongst Birmingham, England riots. I would appreciate it if you were able to do so. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 20:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite long, and I've done quite a lot of work over the past few days... Unfortunately, now there seems to be a slower period again, which means it's sat some time already. :/ Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helping user[edit]

Could you provide some guidance for the contributor at User talk:Pi zero#Seeking help with publishing interview, please? As it's not my area of expertise (even if I weren't having severe computer problems today). --Pi zero (alt acct) (alt talk) 11:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for both of your help! Teemeah (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SF article[edit]

Since you are one of the reviewers online, would you please review the Two injured in parking lot shooting following Raiders–49ers game article. It shoudn't be much trouble. Thanks and regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be lunchtime for me in a few minutes, but assuming nothing real-world interrupts me (I'm moving home soon) I'll review it after that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename[edit]

Can you please carry out my name change on WN:CHU?  † CR90 (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware there's a small backlog but I've been v. busy (and my laptop has not been too healthy). I do promise to try within the next day or two; we have very few local 'crats I'm afraid. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Backlog dealt with. I couldn't fulfil your request owing to a lack of confirmation you are the owner of both accounts. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I needed it because it is a totally new name everywhere, and it was approved everywhere but here without the proof, but I have now provided it  † CR90 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it now. Trouble with a backlog is, by the time I finally got to it it wasn't new... And I didn't think to dig into account age. :/ Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, at least it's finally done. CRRaysHead90 | Another way... 19:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Hello! please make the following pages to semi-protected pages:

Thank you. --FaramarzTalk 15:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've not done this as I really don't see any need. These appear to be low-traffic, and hence unlikely vandalism targets. In addition, your usertalk is where people get in touch with you and protecting it should be a rare last resort. Are you specifically expecting a vandalism problem soon? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you're right about talk page, but I think my user page space needs to be protected because I hardly ever come to English projects (the reason is my English is not very well!) and there's some possibilities to exposure vandalism, therefore please just protect User:Faramarz and User:Faramarz/UBX/1. thanks a lot. --FaramarzTalk 21:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Local users handle vandalism reverting pretty well, so the exposure is minimal and limited. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SUL request[edit]

Hello Blood Red Sandman,

I'm user Joplin from nlwiki and I'm trying to complete my SUL. There is a wikinews user Joplin, but this user hasn't made any edits. I haven't found a page here where I can post this request, so I hope you can help me out. Best regards, 87.212.244.53 (talk) 10:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joplin. You'd have wanted Wikinews:Changing username. I don't actually understand how people manage to find these pages on random WMF projects - thankfully, I've never needed to myself! The Joplin account has never edited and lain dormant for years, so I'll usurp it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Blood Red Sandman, I actually think I found the right page first time! Thanks for the fast action. Best regards, Joplin (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request 2[edit]

Hi Blood Red Sandman,

I was wondering if you could delete an article I started here as I thought if I started the article other editors would jump in with the writing, but this notion was incorrect. Aaaccc (talk), 27 September 2011

Review[edit]

Please may you review this article? It is called Powerful Typhoon Nesat slams Phillipines. --Onewhohelps (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please Review the article[edit]

Hello, Blood Red Sandman, as you noticed there are two similar articles about life extension manifestation, one of it was written before the event, another one http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_ever_manifestation_for_radical_life_extension_took_place

after the event. May I ask you to review and release the second one and delete the first one since it became outdated while it was moving through procedures. Thank you in advance!

  • Hi, I resubmitted the article with all problems resolved, may I ask you to release the new article

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_ever_rally_for_scientific_life_extension and delete the previous one (it dublicate with the incoorect title) http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_ever_manifestation_for_radical_life_extension_took_place

Request 3[edit]

Hi Blood Red Sandman,

I was just wondering if you would be able to fulfill a request I made here to have a link to a deleted photo removed. Aaaccc (talk) 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You do not need to try to recover the photo as it was deleted for missing permission or source. I was just unaware that you could not remove the link. Aaaccc (talk) 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikinews is not Commons and we will make a judgement on the suitability when we see it for ourselves... Or, more likely to be accurate, Amgine will make a judgement when Amgine sees it for xyrself. The aboslute furthest we will stretch is the possibility of a placeholder image noting our partner organisation has removed their photo. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review request 2[edit]

Can you please review this article? I have placed an additional source. Is it alright to be published now?--Hallows AG (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All eighteen people in Indonesia plane crash found dead[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering which of the passages in the article infringes copyright--Hallows AG (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pop articles should be fixed now[edit]

--^ Bawolff ☺☻ 19:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews:Changing username[edit]

Could I please, pretty please, ask if you might expedite my request (for reasons that I think you'll see). Thank you so very much for helping me out. --NicholasTurnbull (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


NARA interview FA[edit]

Hey! Thanks for passing the FAC for Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence! Ragettho (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No bother. It's a great piece! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I actually have a few questions regarding 'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia, if you don't mind answering. (It's a phenomenal piece, by the way)

How much expertise do you have in genetics? (or, more broadly, biology?) Did you start writing this article knowing what you were going to say, or were you guided mostly by the interview responses? Also, how did you decide which people to interview?

The reason I ask is that I'm involved in a student publication that focuses on science policy, and I think your article is a great example of work I'd like to see more of in the future. Also, my coursework requires me to work on a field research project, interviewing and reporting in laymen's terms are of particular interest to me.

Cheers, Ragettho (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be delighted to talk about this. I'm not a geneticist (although Pablo Gejman, a big cheese on the schizophrenia study, asked if I was), in fact my science is largely limited to amateur interest. That said, I have embarked upon a marine science degree and as I start to specialise I'll be heading down the biology route. My ultimate aim is to end up in research.

I started out selecting interviewees on the basis that they had appeared in the news recently. My plan was to focus on this massive study, yes, but also provide an overview of these conditions appearing in academia over the past month. (Well, it grew to be a month, I originally wanted to interview some researchers on the original project and just look at it.) I went for NICE because I was already aware of their existence, being a Brit myself, and they seemed a good choice to discuss potential applications - I wanted to get a bit of "what does this mean for sufferers"-type stuff in.

I found it helps to do your homework; I read over a lot of articles old and new to gain a basic understanding of what was what with bipolar and schizophrenia. That's where MDF came in - I wanted to talk to a big charity, and I didn't even need to go looking since I'd already read some of their stuff whilst researching. One of the directions I wanted to steer things was vaguely political; is there enough funding, is healthcare good enough. I did look for good answers, but I didn't find any, except for the fact major international funding is here for really big projects. I confess to not being surprised. I had background material from that month's news I could quote for US healthcare, and Gejman has some universal comments on that. I'd found Berk to talk from an Australian perspective; a British support charity was then the clear choice to cover this from all the angles I had research comment from.

I actually laid off the writing process until I'd gathered everything. I had a reasonably good idea what I was going to say, I needed it to guide my interviewing, but I wanted to wait until I had all my material. I was then able to draw connections between all the various points I'd picked up, interweaving the responses so they were relevant to each other.

Hope all this is helpful. :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BRS! That was really helpful. :)
The method you used is basically the same as the method my classmates and I plan to use for our field research project. The info we get from literature reviews, interviews, focus groups, ethnographic studies, etc never come in an orderly fashion; you just have to be able to take all the info and deal with it as it comes in.
Please forgive me for straying from the initial topic, but I would appreciate some input. As I implied earlier, my classmates and I have to conduct interviews and lit reviews to prepare a report with recommended plans of action (it's a lot like a think tank), so I'm trying to devise a way to ensure that all of our research is organized and can be accessed easily by other students. There are 30 students in the class, and each person is required to conduct four interviews and a substantial amount of lit review. Focus groups and surveys may be a part of our research as well. Obviously that is a lot of information to organize. Fortunately, my university offers free Confluence wiki services, so I've proposed that the class use this service to organize our findings.
What do you think of this idea? In your experience (which I presume is quite broad due to your adminship on multiple wikis) are wikis effective in organizing professional and academic work? I'm tempted to cite Wikipedia as a successful collaboration that could serve as a model for our class, but at the same time I realize that there are vast differences between Wikipedia and other collaborative projects. For example, Wikipedia is a collection of facts that can be easily divided into categories, topics, and headings, while other types of academic and professional work involve a mixture of facts and opinions. Furthermore, the structure of a report is often guided by the thesis statement and the author's writing style. For this reason it is often very difficult for two or more people to collaborate on a report — we can even see this in Wikinews, where most of our articles are written by one person each!
Despite these setbacks, I still recommend using a wiki for my class, since I can't think of a better way to organize an entire class's research. But if you have any added insight into this situation, then I would greatly appreciate your advice. Cheers, Ragettho (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what wikis are designed to do, and it may be that there are better alternatives out there, but I think a wiki will be serviceable. Each 'raw' source document - be it academic research, survery results, interview responses, anything - can be dumped onto the wiki. People can then combine their efforts to figure out how to put it all together; indeed, sections can be prepared independently and it is possible to develop multiple drafts simultaneously and then select the best or merge the best elements. So yes, in short, I think the wiki model can handle this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian PM: jailed Swedish journalists 'messenger boys of a terrorist organization'[edit]

Thank you for bringing to my attention the missing URL. I have put it in and the article is now ready for review! Hope to hear from you soon, JacobUOW

Copyvio[edit]

Hi BRS, I believe that U.N. urges for investigation into Gaddafi's death is a copyvio of a CNN news article called U.N. calls for Gadhafi death investigation, originally Hallows AG copied this exact headline name which I renamed, I had also tagged this twice for copyvio but he has removed the tag. He believes that swapping the order around is perfectly acceptable and he wants it reviewed additionally. Just to let you know. Cheers. :) --Onewhohelps (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a person, provided that what that person says is not modified, is not considered a copyvio. See this.--Hallows AG (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be talking about different things; as far as I can see, OWH thinks the headlines are too similar whilst AG thinks the concern is quotes. I'll retitle it, hope that will sort things out :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming request[edit]

Hello. Could you please consider this request ? Alexandria asked stewards to perform the renaming on eswikinews here, but stewards scope is not to use bureaucrat rights on a wiki where there are local 'crats. Thanks by advance ! -- Quentinv57 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, do you think that you will get a chance to review anything today? --Onewhohelps (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to decline to review when other reviewers are also not reviewing; having done so once, I have no intention to single-handedly carry the project again. Besides, I have done some work today off-wiki on a major OR piece that will be going out within days. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be honest, the project doesn't seem to be doing too well at all and I think with the reviews not being processed, i.e. a review has not passed in 2 days, people are getting bored of reading the people really are getting bored of reading the same stuff on the main page which isn't what I would expect from a News Agency. --Onewhohelps (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly reject the implication - by addressing this to me - that this is somehow my fault. I'm starting to get fed up of you; after harassing me offwiki, now it seems you insist on the same onwiki. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi![edit]

Hello Blood Red Sandman, do you mind closing this accreditation request for me? Thanks a lot!--Hallows AG (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would, but someone in their infinite wisdom appears to have created a template purely for the opening/closing of AR requests that I cannot recall seeing before. As I've said above to a very different request, at some point I'll settle down and try to figure out how it works (or remove it entirely). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I closed it, using the same templates I see used to close others lately. Is there another template kicking around somewhere? --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - {{AR status}}. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I'm not fully awake yet. I closed the FR request, rather than the AR request. Duh. (Well, the other wanted closing too. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite alright. Close em' both :) --Hallows AG (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the other, and while I was at it I added some instructions to {{AR status}}. --Pi zero (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No-fly zone demanded by Syrian protesters[edit]

Thanks for reviewing this. It's really satisfying to see an article submitted with a problem, it's reviewed and flagged for improvement, the author improves it, and another reviewer reviews and publishes, all in a reasonable time frame. That's how it should work. :-)

(Btw, just for perspective, I'm likely to be too busy to do a review for some hours at least, as we prepare for a winter storm bearing down on us that's forecast to be the biggest we've had this early since before the civil war (er, that'd be our civil war, a couple of centuries more recent than the one on your side of the pond :-). --Pi zero (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll hopefuly dip in again later (I'm reluctnat to touch OWH's stuff, as I don't wish to attract further conflict; I'd much rather xe settled down and went back to being productive, as we know xe can be). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I review these days mostly on the young end of the queue, as a big effort to review aging synthesis is harder to motivate — if there's a problem the reviewer can't fix, it's increasingly unrealistic that the article will ever be published, so a "not ready" review really is likely to be a "fail". And in the case of those two articles, OWH expressed not caring about whether they're published here (and said iirc they'd been submitted to OG); author apathy is pretty de-incentivizing to a reviewer, so I don't have any plans to review those two other than to mark them stale once they clearly are. If somebody else wants to review them before then, that's up to them. --Pi zero (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend! Just about the article " 'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia". First of all: great work as usual! Simply that: what about putting "...genetic elements of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia." instead of "..elements of bipolar, schizophrenia" in the title? 2.194.11.183 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Bye![reply]

Hi! Our practice on this has now become standardised with the view that 'and' is not needed in titles, as it can be implyed with a comma. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian newspapers to be fined for media breaches[edit]

Hi,

You reviewed my article with the above title recently. Firstly I would like to thank you for your review and your comments. However, I also have a few questions.

In regards to the comments about paragraph length, I would like to say that I definitely do know what a paragraph is, and would consider myself to be a very strong writer. Coming into university, I wrote all of my stories broken up into paragraphs each detailing a different point (as you would with any writing style - essay, review, etc). Each paragraph would be reasonably short, at about two or three sentences.

The idea of using only one sentence (and very occasionally, two) per paragraph was actually acquired post-joining university. This is something we have been taught from day one in our course. And this is not a fault of the university's, this is the journalistic norm in my country.

I am more than happy to adhere to the Wikinews style guide, and I have just re-read through the section about paragraph length now as I must have missed some of those details earlier. I will amend my article accordingly, and would appreciate any help you'd be able to give in doing so.

I will have to ask you, politely, to refrain from making suggestions about my intelligence, or insinuating that my country's journalistic styling is inferior to others. Like I said, I am willing to adjust articles that I write for Wikinews to fit the Wikinews style now that I have been made aware.

As for the other comments, they were very helpful. Thank you for pointing out the technical error I made in the title by stating 'media breaches' and not specifying 'media standards'. I seem to be having a bit of difficulty editing the title though, and I was wondering if you would be able to tell me how to do this?

Thank you for your review and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Regards,

Elliot Cameron University of Wollongong Bachelor of Journalism

First off, it is entirely inaccurate to suggest I made any insinuation about your intelligence. I did make an insinuation about your knowledge - an entirely different matter. It was a positive insinuation (I implied you did know something). Based on the above comments, it was also a correct one.
Given that paragraphs exist for a reason, I am going to openly state that I have long held the practise of not using them in low regard. Please do remember that Wikinews exists in part to supply an alternative to the mainstream press and therefore are not bound by its practices. The entire point is to attempt to write to a higher standard; at least, that is the final goal somewhere in the distant future, regardless of how or even if it will be reached. 'Everyone else does it' is rarely a valid reason, especially in journalism. (A credible explanation, however, is that your uni may have an eye on employability; 'anyone who might employ you will want you to do it' is a valid reason.)
The factual error in your article's headline is actually relatively minor, I'd be happy to sort it myself if there had been no other problems and then just publish it. I'm not going to move it myself as you've just said you'll be doing some work (if two people save an edit together, it causes problems). The rename option is in the top-right (between the star, which is for 'watching' articles, and the search box). Hover over the arrow and it should just drop down.
I am pleased to get to the bottom of this troubling string of paragraphless articles. Pre-UoW collaboration they were so rare that they could normally be taken as an indication of a cut-n-paste copyright violation, and I was certain you'd not done it out of simple ignorance: as said, you don't get on a journalism course without being good at writing. How to address it is another issue... But that's my/'our' problem, not yours, so I wouldn't worry about that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I hope I did not sound aggressive in my first comment. I just wanted to make clear that I was writing in that particular style in accordance to how I have always been taught/my country's journalistic norms. It seems that you did not take my tone as being aggressive, so thank you for that.

In regards to what you said about Wikinews being an alternative - and hopefully one day a 'higher standard' - of regular press, I very much respect your ambition as I think this is an industry whose standards have been allowed to stagnate (and sometimes relapse) where they could otherwise be strengthened.

I have also sent a group message out to the rest of the students in my year's course at UOW, as well as the relevant lecturer for this subject, detailing Wikinews stylistic preferences. I hope this means that future articles submitted from our uni will be in accordance to the Wikinews style guide, making our lifes - and yours - just a bit easier.

Regards,

Elliot Cameron.

No problem, Elliot. I think a big problem with journalism is there's little money in a lot of it. One answer is to actually produce very high-standard stuff worth paying for - Private Eye in the UK is the only thing I'd generally actually pay for. Of course, the reality is (expensive) experienced staff are being cut from papers.
Thanks for getting word spread around the class about how we handle paragraphs. Hopefuly that'll resolve the issue. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding those hyperlinks to my article and publishing it. I very much appreciate it. Been a pleasure working with you. And yes, unfortunately due to the state of the industry as well as the world economy, many people have been losing their jobs. The move away from traditional forms of journalism has seen good results (ie. creations of sites like this), and unfortunate ones (big newspapers losing staff/lowering standards). It will be interesting to see where it ends up in a decade or so from now.

New Jersey jury clears man of five murders over 1978 teens' disappearance[edit]

I ran into trouble verifying (and a touch on neutrality, though that I could have fixed well with in my purview if not for the verification thing). Could be I'm just too blind to see what's in front of me; it wouldn't be my first turn as an idiot. I've actually dug up one (smallish) detail from my list since submitting my review. --Pi zero (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:64.184.36.191[edit]

That's w:User:Dantherocker1. That's what he does. -- Cirt (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. -- Cirt (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the attention to the socking and proxies[edit]

Thanks for helping to protect this project from socking and proxies, -- Cirt (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Someone's gotta do it... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Fluke insists she will not be silenced[edit]

Hi there! Whilst trying to recover from a bit of a cold today, I've put a bit of effort into creating this new article. :) It's a big 'ole {{original reporting}} piece. I've taken some prior helpful advice and suggestions from Pi zero (talk · contribs) into account, and put all the most recent newsy stuff at the top, and the background chronology later on. Care to review? Thanks for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BRS, as things stand at the moment I write this, I'd welcome input on my not-ready review comments, a major element of the comments being that I see a problem but am unsatisfied atm with my ability to offer guidance toward solving it. --Pi zero (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've addressed all issues in a point-by-point response on the article's talk page. I've also gone ahead and added some additional secondary sources as references to the article, to ease verifiability. Hopefully this will be satisfactory. :) -- Cirt (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. FYI, I'll be publishing an unrelated interview, shortly. -- Cirt (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll look forward to it. And, you're welcome. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

It's ready for review at Wikinews interviews New York bar owner on Santorum cocktail, care to have a look? I've emailed you the interview. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and one interesting comment on the opinion tab so far. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting follow-up piece = "Savage on Santorum on Savage", care to review it? :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, I'm quite tired atm. I was thinking about a shorter/easier review. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, some of the stuff is already-pre-reviewed-background from a prior article. Care to take a quick look? :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added a note to the article's talk page about Background. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the doon school[edit]

hi, you recently reviewed the doon school news and said that it is five months old. Well, as I'm new to Wiki can I ask you a silly question? It might be 5 months old but it is still news. What's newsworthiness got to do with how old is the news is? do forgive my foolishness, if it is, that is to say. thanks! p.s:- Also, I wasn't on wiki 5 months back :P Anony1212 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! Anony1212 (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short n sweet[edit]

This one's short n' sweet, and the info from the sources is pretty simple. Shouldn't be too hard. Care to give it a review? :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, I created a new infobox template for use on this article and hopefully many others, {{Infobox Women}} — it's really true that there's a lack of focus on women's issues on all the various Wikimedia projects, unfortunately. :( Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I think the infobox makes sense to keep, especially for generalist topics like "First woman president of ...", etc. But you're right, this particular article is more about women's rights, and I'll go ahead and make a more specific infobox for that particular subject matter. -- Cirt (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazzaville[edit]

BRS, Is there anyway I can get this article reviewed today? It's the one month mark, which is significant. If the date passes the story is going to fade. Is there anything I can do to get this reviewed or get some feedback? Crtew (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me, unfortunately. It's far too big a job and I'm just not getting the time my end for such a large piece. I won't have Internet access starting tommorrow and lasting the ebst part of a week and preparing for the events behind that is taking up a lot of time. I'd normally point you at Brian, who is both fast and thorough, but his laptop has passed away. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you, I understand. We need to take up a collection for Brian!!! As the say, "Stay thirsty, my friend." Crtew (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it wasn't the response you wanted, or that I wanted to give. Good luck on the piece, it's important and I want to see it go out. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Court of Human Rights rules Germany allowed to ban incest[edit]

BRS, The article looks good, and I made a few changes for clarification or to answer likely questions that a reader might ask. Crtew (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women's rights article[edit]

New article I've created, uses the new Women's rights infobox, helps provide more coverage on this important topic (involving women) that can always use additional reporting. :) Care to review? -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cirt. I might look at it, but I'm hoping to write something tonight. Hopefully I'll do both (or, of course, someone else may beat me to it). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, either way, no worries! ;) Good luck with the writing! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Tymoshenko on hunger strike[edit]

The story is barely 4 hours old, notification is just comming out that she has been hit and has been on hunger strike since friday. I dont have time to edit all the details but every major news agency will cover the story within 24 hours, so surely wiki news can at least give a headline. Yours ever w:user:Czar Brodie, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. If it is only just being reported she is on hunger strike, that needs to be mentioned in the article. And whilst we could produce "just a headline", we'd really rather have a full article. At any rate, as I said, three paragraphs is considered minimum. You've chosen an ideal story for learning the ropes on, best of luck. The Wikinews learning curve is quite steep, but it's also quite short. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobs01[edit]

I'm trying to unify my global accounts and I guess I did it wrong. Can you help me? Thank you. 69.171.160.215 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can, yes. Sign into the account and then head to Special:MergeAccount, you should manage it from there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia, it says I have to create an account here with the same e-mail to be verified, but here it says account taken or in use already. 69.171.160.215 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Have another look at it from Wikipedia, is there any sign of someplace where you can enter a password for your non-unified accounts? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It says Finish merge If these accounts do belong to you, you can finish the login unification process simply by typing the passwords for the other accounts here:, but it doesn't work. So the helps at unified login say create an account here with the same e-mail. 69.171.160.215 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds pretty odd to me. I wonder if this might be something to ask WMF technical staff. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks. But there is not another User:Nobs01 as best I can determine, despite getting Username entered already in use when I try to create an account. 69.171.160.215 (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cat names[edit]

Just noting for the future — I generally favor including the country name in just about all city category names; if I were setting up Category:London it might well be called Category:London, England. If one city with the name predominates, the redirect for the unadorned name can go there (e.g. Tripoli redirects to Category:Tripoli, Libya). --Pi zero (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't prefer it, however; it seems clunky and needless to me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Such things get autocompleted by HotCat, so I don't see why it'd be clunky. As for needless, well, it can save gratuitous confusion when there end up being more than one city with that name, which is why it's recommended in that case, and renaming the category when the second same-named city gets its category is a pain. (I'm still trying to nerve myself to propose renaming both Category:Religion and Portal:Spirituality to Spirituality and religion.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the first cat would need renamed when a lesser-known city, town, or village showed up. There will always be one primary use of Aberdeen, or of Port of Spain, or of Pichilemu, or of Ürümqi. If we redirect the unadorned name to the better-known city's cat, why would we differentiate that cat's name? It seems to me if (hopefully, when) the need arises, we can use disambiguation links like the 'pedias do. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reserving the unadorned name for the most common choice always struck me as encyclopedic, and an invitation to subjectivity since one then has to decide whether or not one choice is sufficiently more common. (I would have thought Tripoli, Libya was the hands-down winner, but our articles that mention Tripoli, Lebanon tend to treat it as if it were the only Tripoli on earth.) Whereas being precise and not playing favorites struck me as newsish. (There may have been another argument or two that crossed my mind, but I don't recall it/them atm.)
I once created a city category unqualified by country, for a capital in Africa that I reckoned was probably (as a practical matter) unique on the entire globe — and then regretted it afterward because I wished the cat name had the country name built in as a convenient reminder.
I wouldn't object on principle to disambig pages as long as they were
  • not in category space (dummy categories tend to be an attractive nuisance), and
  • if in mainspace, fully protected.
Even with disambig pages, my reasons for wanting to qualify city cat names by country would remain intact, I think. --Pi zero (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two things strike me here: First of all, I think it's the superfluous extra info in adding the location that is encyclopedic, not the removing of it. Second, I'm thinking of disambiguation links rather than pages. I imagine it'd be quite a while before we could justify an entire page. In terms of treating a city as though unique within an article, I'd suggest it should be fairly obvious that a random city in an article about (to keep the example) Lebanon would be in Labanon. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a disambig "link" would be. I'm only familiar with disambig pages, typically with a line that says something like "XXX may refer to" followed by a bulleted list.
Actually, when I was talking about Tripoli, Lebanon articles, what I meant was that when linking the word "Tripoli" they tended (until I came along and cleaned them up) to send it either to Tripoli or to w:Tripoli. --Pi zero (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite literally, a link that, well, disambiguates. en.Wikipedia tends to do them as hatnotes at the tops of articles and I see no reason why we can't do the same (slightly ludicrously, the first example I could find was w:Gnevny class destroyer). I also don't see why flawed linking means we should repair something other than the flawed linking. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er. Like, a note on one category that says it's not-to-be-confused-with such-and-such? That being one of the uses I'd in mind for the {{{usage note}}} parameter to {{topic cat}}. (And I still consider it orthogonal to my reasons for wanting to usually include the country in the cat name.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, exactly. But if you have artificially lengthened cat names it becomes duplication of info. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

I really thought I could review your article tonight, but consistently underestimate how tired I've been getting toward the end of the day. --Pi zero (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerez article[edit]

Are you saying something is biased because I added descriptive words like brilliant display of riding, ect?

That is simply normal way for sports writers to write, if you make everything absolutely so and so did this, then so and so did this, it will be the most boring piece of English written... EVER!

I feel like those are not biased comments, and I couldn't find anything else besides maybe the disappointing part. However it is disappointing to the team, to the fans, to everyone that follows the sport. Same thing when a team has a upset and the lesser team wins... right?

Yes, I am. Wikinews is not any other news source and this is how we do things. I note that the article actually says not merely brilliant, but absolutely brilliant. Then there is "ridiculous drive", "spectacular fashion", "disappointing", "amazing"... Surely, some of the riders/teams must have commented after the race? Take a look at the sources; is there anybody involved in the race saying anything quotable? Then we can take out the opinions, and replace with facts: e.g. Team Example principle John Smith accepted the result was "disappointing"; Rider A.N. Other hailed the "death-defying riding" on the circuit, etc. Wikinews cannot have its own opinions on things. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis article[edit]

I was going to not ready the tennis article due to NPOV ("interestingly enough" etc. in last paragraph needs tightening up), but I'm getting a weird script error. Can you review it until I can get home and gets things squared away? Your choice, pass or fail. Bddpaux (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I even understand that paragraph. :/ Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russians arrested environmental expert Knuuttila in Russia[edit]

In my opinion Russians arrested environmental expert Knuuttila in Russia deserves place and should be recovered. It was significant as: Significance In my opinion news deserve its place since:

•Leak detected by Knuuttila may be the highest in the Baltic Sea and higher than total from Finland annually •Concern is international •EuroChem is international company. Company claims itself to be among the top three in Europe. ( ref EuroChem) According to Forbes Eurochem assets are hold by Andrey Melnichenko with net worth of $10.8 billion as of March 2012 and also large investments in coal production.( ref Forbes) •Russia detained Knuttila invited by the company to study the source of PO4 leak. Thus, as I see it, EuroChem and Fosforit had responsibility of his security and good cooperation

•Company reasoning rises questions: 1) Knuuttila could be easily identified in the plant also without passport, which was in fact later confirmed 2) Police and EuroChem read the computer owned by the state of Finland. This needs international attention. 3) Plant was named as a strategic company. Ok, many farmers consider fertilizers strategic and fertilizers can be used also for other purposes. Even if so, a peaceful water sampling and a computer could not threaten the factory as I understand. According to Finnish authorities the sampling places had been agreed. Two Russians where with. According to Russian environmental activists (Greenpeace), they have had as well problems if taking environmental samples. 4) News raised concern of not only of the environmental practices but also the human rights in Russia. Other examples of this concern included: the Khimki forest case and reporters Mikhail Beketov and Oleg Kashin [1] and Alexander Senotrusov [2].

There was some other cases (stalled), which makes this important. Sorry this is not fair. Today is the deadline for tax declaration. I have to go. Watti Renew (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You walked away from the article. YOU DID NOT EDIT IT FOR SIX FUCKING DAYS. I really don't know what you are finding so difficult about the concept that news must be new, nor do I understand your desire to somehow make it everyone else's fault but your own that you are a) ignoring both policy and helpful advise b) clearly taking on projects you do not have either the time or the inclination (possibly both) to complete. You can spam as much shite as you like on my page, it does not change the fact you are ignoring completely the simple concept that time moves on. Since you are apparently unaware, today is May 8, 2012. The fact that this might have been news once upon a time will never change the fact that it no longer is. The news event, as identified in the headline and lede, was an arrest. Assuming the lede to be correct, that arrest was a whopping 27 days ago. That is not news. That was news a month ago. How many times will this simple concept need repeated to you? You seem to think of this site as something of a game for your own personal amusement; something you can ignore midway through a project for a week at a time before coming back and expecting the world to be just as you left it. A playground for you to impose your own standards upon, quite apart from the fact they bear no resemblance to the standards required for news. It is not. If you continue to ignore simple explanations, continue to pretend that by adding more detail you can somehow travel through time, continue to ignore requests to change to comply with the style guide, continue to ignore advise to start simple and work your way up, then you will become disruptive. I dislike blocking editors who honestly wish to contribute, but you are becoming a massive waste of time to those of us who listen to what people are telling them and engage constructively with them (i.e. not you). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down Blood Red Sandman, I need your help and cooperation. Everyone is new at start, dont you agree? This language is one challenge. Finnish is easy: no prepositions, no genders, no articles and the word order is very flexible. You are very wellcome to contribute in the Finnish Wikinews. See: :Luokka:Onnettomuudet & Luokka:Britannia. There is place for more editors. Here I keep weekend holydays and have other hurries. Also, I was adviced to concentrate on the two other articles at start: Finnish court gives MP Ilkka Kanerva suspended prison sentence‎ and Critics of Danish Security and Intelligence Service. ‎I agree with you, this was written long time a ago and can be dated in my opinion accordingly. Wikinews does not delete article older than three days. Thus, in my opinion the three days rule is more a guideline than a strict rule. Disagreement of the style does not prevent it to be published later. In my opinion we should discuss also returning/publishing Peat energy war in Finland. Watti Renew (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I might drop in here for a remark.
Watti Renew, you've misunderstood about the three-day principle. In the lifetime of an article, the most dramatic moment is the moment the article is published. Everything before that moment is leading up to it, and everything after it is usually bookkeeping. Here's how a successful article evolves.
  1. A newsworthy event occurs.
  2. An article is written about it.
  3. An authorized reviewer, with expertise in our site standards, does a rigorous review of the article. If there's a problem, the reviewer assesses the article not ready and writes comments to help the writer(s) understand why it isn't ready to publish, and what (if anything) can be done to fix the problem(s).
  4. When-and-if the article is found ready to publish, the authorized reviewer causes that to happen.
  5. For the first 24 hours after publication, substantive changes can be made to the article; these changes don't get published immediately, but are rigorously reviewed for possible publication, just as the article was subject to review in the first place.
  6. For another six days (or so) the article is editable by anyone, and visible on the main page. Only minor changes are allowed during this time, like fixing spelling errors; but it is publicly editable.
  7. A week after publication, the article is archived. We have about eighteen thousand articles in our archives, going back about seven years.
An article has to be fresh in order to be published. I'll say that again: we will only publish an article that describes a current event, something that has just happened. When it is published, the date of publication goes on the article. Years later, someone browsing through our archives can read the article, and it still talks about things happening "today", or "yesterday" — because it is a snapshot of the world as it looked at the moment of publication. But all problems with the article must be fixed and the article must be rigorously reviewed and found ready to publish very quickly, within at most a few days after the news event took place — because if it isn't published by then, it is no longer news, and so cannot be published. --Pi zero (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish court gives MP Ilkka Kanerva suspended prison sentence[edit]

Sorry this is not fair. Today is the deadline for tax declaration. I have to go.

I point out the new important news from Finland: Architect of the present Helsingin Sanomat dies at 79 Aatos Erkko remembered in Finland and abroad Watti Renew (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Watti Renew (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not being fair; you are not listening to anyone but yourself, and trying to twist the community into an encyclopedia, with no sense of time and therefore no sense of news. You are wasting our time. I am sorry to hear of Erkko's passing; the Sanomat is an excellent newspaper. In fact, you should read it. Unlike you, it understands the concept of requiring actual news in order to run a news service. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Red Sandman, you make me upset and cry. I need a coffee brake. It does not help me to fix the articles when you make me cry. There is no news from Finland since 5 December 2011 and only five news within a year. In my opinion this is the main challenge of Wikinews. In my opinion we should cooperate to invite new writers. Deletions do not wellcome new editors others here. This is your problem as well. Watti Renew (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot and bureaucracy[edit]

Ok, I might understand why my bot is blocked, but I do not understand why nobody reviewed my request for bot flag... --BokicaK (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer thoughts myself, but I'm not competent to consider the fineties of bot workings. I believe bawolff (talk · contribs) and Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) have the technical know-how, you might want to ask them to take a look. Pi zero (talk · contribs) might be able to offer something, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you, betrayer![edit]

Way ya stay o wikinews not wikipedia?

I love you too. <3 Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blocked website saudi.jpg[edit]

Could you provide a reasoning? Why do you have {{NowCommons}}, then? --Leyo (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about you provide a reasoning? What are you trying to do, and why? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC
I guess that's obvious. I moved the file to Commons (as I did for other > 1000 files [mainly from Wikipedia]). The local file can now get deleted. Since I do not have the admin bits here, I cannot do it myself. --Leyo (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that your first edit was to claim you made the image yourself and were releasing it under the GFDL, and your second edit was to add a template but leave a vital parameter missing, no it is not obvious. And no, given that I must now rely on your demonstrably unreliable word as to the image being free under Saudi Arabian law, and that if you are wrong Commons will delete the image from under us if you are wrong, it shall not be done. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated in the edit summary (in German, I know), this was just a temporary edit in order to outwit CommonsHelper.
  • Template:NowCommons was outdated. I fixed it.
  • A word of a Commons admin is unreliable in this issue?!?
--Leyo (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having just looked at the image on Commons, I'd say it's correctly labelled now - PD-ineligible. However, Leyo, Commons is notorious for willy-nilly deleting images in-use here on fully-protected pages, with no consultation whatsoever; so, you should expect suspicion, or even hostility, when you play with images here.
We've got local upload, and I can't remember ever being consulted prior to a deletion on Commons to see if an image we are using could be locally hosted under a Fair Use Rational.
That's the problem. Best-summed up as, "we view Commons as a media repository to serve all projects; you don't. From where we sit, it's a capricious, uncaring collection of people with little-to-no understanding of Wikinews."
And, whilst you're challenging one local 'crat on "taking the word of a Commons admin", you just got one of the other 'crats (me) double-checking. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user:rezabot[edit]

Hi, please unblock my bot (rezabot) it is globla bot but it will not edit on this wiki.thank youReza1615 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate[edit]

If you could review this.. Raja Pervaiz Ashraf appointed as new Prime Minister of Pakistan. Thanks, 123.211.6.203 (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already did so, as you were asking. New developments are all well and good, but the story presented is still stale because it's still the same story. Flipping it round to focus on the new events would be a good move. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about now? Raja Pervaiz Ashraf faces new challenges in first week of premiership. Mar4d (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better. I think I'm going to rearrange the article some more myself (which disqaulifies me as a reviewer), but this has gone in the right direction and I'm getting optimistic it'll go out soon. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for helping :) Mar4d (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a new lede, knocking down part of your lede to become the start of the main part of the article. I tried to tie together the elements of the story in the lede, to justify the headline. Good work, you've responded really well to the advice you've been given. :D Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ACTA-ing up[edit]

You be able to take on a review?

I'm undecided on adding in the national security shtick, which many will have forgot. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best offer I can make is possibly. As to the national security thing, a few lines of background from it would be welcome context. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!! ....and wow once again!!!![edit]

Did you know that you've created over 600 articles?!! 600?!!!!!!!! ...and, technically speaking this is the first time you've ever received one of these! >>>>>>>>


This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 501st published news article.

--Congratulations!!--Bddpaux (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honeywell[edit]

Hi BRS. I'm a public relations professional by trade and run a consultancy called EthicalWiki that helps companies contribute to Wikipedia through Talk pages. I'm doing COI work for Honeywell on Wikipedia. (see Honeywell Aerospace). Like any corporation, Honeywell provides expertise and commentary to news sources covering topics they have an interest in. One of those topics are plane crashes, due to their knowledge in avionics. Brian McNeil pointed me your way as someone who might find value in future collaborations in a traditional PR sense (providing an expert commenter, interview subject, etc.) - basically interacting with Wikinews the same way we do with any traditional news source.

For now, I'm just trying to find out if Wikinews editors like yourself want this kind of collaboration. For example, if I could provide a contact for an expert commenter from Honeywell you could use when covering plane crashes. King4057 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, King. It sounds good on the face of it. I've paid some attention (although I haven't examined it in detail) to the conversation on the Water Cooler, and I'd echo a sentiment expressed there; in terms of 'pitching' stories, we're likely too-limited in terms of reporter number to be able to cope. What you're suggesting here sounds much more workable. Honeywell input would probably be most-useful as accident reports (interim and final) come out, as this is where things invariably get complex. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User rename[edit]

Look at the confirmation link in this request once more, please--95.69.206.48 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the third time you have said this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because I haven't heard the answer from you :)--95.69.206.48 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last I looked, it's been just over a day. Entirely normal for such low-priority items as user renames. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Waiting for your decision concerning my request--95.69.206.48 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it'll be dealt with in the next few days. It's a question of time; it's not just having the time to check everything's in order, it's the fact that on a small wiki we also prioritise mainspace above all else when deciding what to do with our time. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind??[edit]

We've got 3 articles lingering for publication decisions; we've hit an odd lull here of-late...maybe the conference scheduled for tomorrow...not sure; 1 is mine, 1 I helped too much with and I'm not entirely sure I have the energy to review......; could you review/fail/publish any or all of those?? I just have a weird sickness that follows me when articles flounder in the newsroom for too long. --Bddpaux (talk)

It's not a question of wether I mind, it's a question of time. I was going to do a review last night, but the image pages were b0rked and I ran out of time whilst waiting for them to be fixed. In the end, they still hadn't been fixed when I next had time, and so I had to spend what minutes I had fixing them myself. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review request[edit]

Hi. Can you place a priority on reviewing 15 medals awarded on fourth night of track and field at London Paralympics? This is the Oscar Pitrious article, and that is hugely, hugely, hugely popular Paralympic news wise. --LauraHale (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive: No-bid contract for security review of IRS facilities mismanaged[edit]

Hello again. I was wondering if you could take a look at this article and put in an opinion about the review. The reviewer I think is saying it's old news, when my research indicated that Wikinews has a breaking story. thanks! --Stillwaterising (talk)

EdwardsBot[edit]

Gday. I am seeing that EdwardsBot is blocked at enWN. I am wondering whether that block is still required as the bot has been playing an integral part in communicating messages to the respective wikis, including by WMF staff. Have a peak at m:User:EdwardsBot and W:User:EdwardsBot Billinghurst (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I just came here to (re-)investigate this situation as well. It looks like Blood Red Sandman is pretty inactive here lately. I'll try to file a bot request for EdwardsBot now. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to get it passed. Do I still have talkpage lurkers who could comment here and let me know if it's active here now? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An update on that. Quite a circus it was, really. MZMcBride applied for unblock, in an arrogant and obnoxious way, without providing required information. The nomination was voted down. In subsequent discussion (that's a pleasant word for it) on the water cooler, brianmc remarked the problem was easily solved, and re-nominated it for unblocking himself. It would have gone through, except that MZMcBride himself (who only had to keep his mouth shut) trolled us, not just a little. We decided we shouldn't trust a bot run by someone with that bad an attitude. (Epilog: MZMcBride, and later Mono, taunted us after the second vote with the slogan "Wikinews, the news site that can't receive news".) --Pi zero (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

privs[edit]

Better safe than sorry.

[...]

--Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er. I'd better explain that. The privs on your alternate account have been reduced. But its talk page redirects here. --Pi zero (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I've probably lost the password for that. Might be safest to block it entirely. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been missed[edit]

Hey. I've not seen much from you lately on Wikinews. You've been a fabulous member of the community, were extremely welcoming to me when I first came here and make the place an all around better place. Are you doing well? If you need anything, and not near Australian chocolates but maybe a postcard, let me know privately or publicly. :) --LauraHale (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Laura. If I remember rightly, I drifted off after my previous laptop caught fire (!) and just never returned. I've been busy with university and illness. Life is pretty grand now, and I'm actually rather touched by this message. Tempt me not to steal your money on a postcard, I liek foreign stamps :p How've you been yourself? Delighted to see you still working here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never had one catch fire, but I lost a laptop hard drive to overheating. I learned from that to always keep a laptop on a hard surface, so there's air flow underneath. --Pi zero (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. It would be a really great time for you, as a Wikinews accredited reporter, to do some original reporting and conduct interviews. People should be around to interview to prevent a backlog, 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) 10:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I live[edit]

Hello world. I appear to be alive. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blood_Red_Sandman/archive_5&oldid=1974804"