User talk:Brian McNeil/Archive 17

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


What do you think should be done about this? Gopher65talk 02:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Virginia Tech Police Officer Shot and Killed

I just wanted to say that this was my very first attempt at writing an article. I did not cut and paste anything, I just read the two articles from my local paper and put it in my own words. I tried to cite those two articles. Any help would be appreciated. Jradliff17 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of "Blacksburg, VA -" as the introduction to the article made it look like something copied from elsewhere. That's a style rarely used here on Wikinews, and only when you're on-the-scene. That's what made me suspicious that it might be a copyvio. The key reason it was failed, though was "verifiability" - due to the sources templates not being correctly filled in and allowing the reviewer to verify the article content. Might want to take a look at the relevant section in this essay—one that we really need to rewrite and condense. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I repeatedly tried to send them, but Google gave me three bounce backs. Did you ever get them? (Please comment back on my talk page or I'm unlikely to see a return comment.) --LauraHale (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewer benevolence

---quote---- If these stated items are available, it is not outwith the remit of a reviewer to correctly format sources, perhaps prompt for original reporting notes to be added to an article's discussion page, and add relevant markup. Then, they would have an article they could sign-off. With regards to the referenced article, none of these criterion are met; and, prompting for original reporting notes resulted in a link to the talk page being added to the Comments page—the page for readers to discuss published articles. Sadly, and Wikinews has direct experience of this, many of today's journalism graduates have—by the end of their studies—largely concluded their job is to provide commentary, not hard-facts news. What is more depressing is there are plenty of publications will happily employ them to write such "not-news" column-inch filler. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC) --- end quote ---

Shouldn't it say "these criteria" instead of "these criterion"? I fail to understand the "not outwith the remit of a reviewer". I also fail to understand why a reviewer would not attempt to help a first time wikinews poster instead of posting commentaries that include the "non-news column-inch filler" wording —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

  • criterion is more appropriate, as sources are something against which the validity of an article is judged. And, "not outwith the remit of a reviewer" refers to correcting a substantially valid article where sources may be malformatted, markup possibly incorrect, and other points where a complete rewrite, or level of changes that disqualifies the reviewer, are not required. As to your last point, do you know the difference between an editorial and a news article? If not, then you will find it well-nigh impossible to contribute to Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of possible interest re the phrase, from our esteemed sister project Wiktionary: wikt:outwith#Preposition, wikt:remit#Noun.
To be clear: An article can only be reviewed by a reviewer who is sufficiently uninvolved with the article. A reviewer can make superficial changes to an article and still remain uninvolved with its content. --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite. Cosmetic changes? Formatting changes? Layout changes? Light-to-'medium' copyediting? Substantive changes? No. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean that it should be "this criterion" ?

You seem to be confused in regards to the identity of the article's poster versus my identity. We are not the same person. You also continue to use offending suppositions "do you know the difference between an editorial and a news article?" in spite of this being obviously a technical problem.

If you find the question offending, then that is a problem you have that I cannot help with. It was a question, no more, no less. The difference between a news article and an editorial is considerably more than "a technical problem", so perhaps the question was appropriately put.
Now, are you going to offer any constructive input, or just snipe? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New article - request for assistance

Dear Brian, I see that you're an active and experienced Wikinews-ian.(?!?)

Any chance you could help me develop this news story? It's pretty big, so I was surprised not to see it here. I've had a long day, so I can't take it further. If you could add to it that would be fab. Cueball (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Washington Post 1 Washington Post 2 New York Times

Thanks for your help. Cueball (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Morning. I'm busy until late this evening, but I'll try to check in. I agree the article could do with some more work. Cueball (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dug up a couple more sources, including one from September, expanded the article more, and have subbed it for review. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, you work fast! I only got home a short while ago. That's a good article you've prepared. Shame this didn't come up at the weekend when I would have had time to work on it more, but I'm glad to see it's mentioned now. I hope it gets on to the front page! Cueball (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI my last edit was based on another Telegraph article that seems to be a variation of one from yesterday. I was reluctant to add a third Telegraph article in, so I don't know how you want to handle it. Cueball (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reviewed that edit, based on the listed sources, and published it with revisions. Note, the article is on the main page. --Pi zero (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation of copyrighted material

If something that would be a copyvio is translated to another language, what is the copyright status of the translation? I've long wondered this generally, but my specific catalyst for asking is Václav Havel dies at the age of 75, which seems to have been single-source based on CT24 (don't know how close), with other sources piled on purely for English-language verification. --Pi zero (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I recall from long ago when this was argued out, a translation is a derivative work. So, in such circumstances it's not acceptable unless the original source is under a free license. Is there any involvement from other language versions of Wikinews? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does appear to have been a translation of a certain revision of cs:Zemřel Václav Havel, though the author was unable to figure out how to make the translate template work (reported on the talk page); my suspicion of single-source was because at the time of translation only one source was listed... although looking at the indicated revision of the cs.wn article, it seems to list three sources. --Pi zero (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brian is correct. The translation itself accrues additional copyright - so a translation of a PD document is not automatically PD - but equally where it is based upon a copyright-protected work it requires the permission of the copyright holder(s). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Don't you just hate that? Me being right.) But, yes, pretty well summed-up. You can add copyright restrictions with a translation, but you can never remove or reduce those present on the original. As an article based on a foreign-language Wikinews, we're pretty safe. In an ideal world, the cs: version would have been similarly peer-reviewed, and all we'd require to do is validate facts therein against whatever English-language sources we choose. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's assuming the en.wn article acknowledges the cs.wn article — which atm it doesn't, as the original author tried but failed to put on a template, and someone else removed the non-functioning attempt. I'll try to add it back in (like the author, I don't know my way around those templates), but should probably check the licensing of cs.wn and it irks me that I've no way to review the cs.wn article for copyright. (It also frustrates me that I may not be able to do much about it for some hours, as I've already blown my available morning on Wikinews.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accreditation and Google News listings and

Hello Brian. I'm posting this in reply to your post on the he.wikinews Village Pump.

Unfortunately, the Hebrew project is not active, as in - there are no active users. There's just two sysops (one of them is me) that act as caretakers. When the project was active we were considering just this. Unfortunately (yet again), I don't have the info regarding this.

If you need the Israeli view on this matter, your best bet is contacting our local Wikimedia chapter. Try the spokeperson, Itzik Edri. You can find his email here.

Good luck with your endeavor. Havelock (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In contrast to he.wikinews in es.wikinews have responded in the coffee community --MadriCR (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again, today completed the first ballot for ProtoplasmaKid is accredited Wikinews reporter in Spanish in Mexico. There you can see the result. I hope you can give your e-mail, and tomorrow (December 30) completes another vote for this server is accredited reporter in Costa Rica, happy holidays :) --MadriCR (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the support, Brian. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Brian! Got time? Can you help me?

Hi Brian! We collaborated in the Haiti abduction story two years ago, and I could use your support again now. I want to write an article about the LA arson case (a German national has just been arrested), but I sure need a good editor to polish up my writing. Can you help me? Would be very much apppreciated! Gray62 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks! I've started it here: Will add more details and come back to you later. Gray62 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phew, that's hard work. Dunno how the journalists write such stuff so fast, it ain't easy for me to make this sound like a news story (ok, I also wasted much time unsuccessfully searching for public domain pictures of the arsons). Have to do other stuff for now, but will come back to this later. Please check the article, if you have the time, and don't hesitate to edit my clumsy phrase, Brian! Thx. Gray62 (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've gone over the submission and copy-edited it; but, do you really need that many sources? The less there are, the less work in reviewing (obviously, staying above the two-source minimum). --Brian McNeil / talk 13:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

photo pass

Brian, Laura Hale suggested you as a good contact to help us with this project to get better photos of sports and celebrities (a huge issue in our content): w:Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Press_pass_trial

At this point, it is not about asking for money (although maybe some grants down the road). But just need a letter or two.

It is all legit (great photogs) and not about some sort of fans wanting to watch the action or the like.

I realize getting into Olys will be hard (maybe impossible), but at least in gym, there are lower competitions with still lots of big names. And USAG and FIG have been pretty forward-thinking about embracing social media (there are accredited bloggers for instance, and I think we drive as much traffic as some of them).

End result is better photos for articles in En-Wiki and Commons. But I would do the writing for a news story if that convinces you to help us!

TCO (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.s. This is my first post on WN. Usually, I am at en Wiki. -TCO

The gist of the discussion over there seems to be you need "letters of introduction" - yes?
I've certainly done those before for our accredited reporters. As such I don't represent myself, or any reporter/photographer as any position of 'real' authority. It's just a professional, polite, letter requesting access/assistance for the purpose of photojournalism.
If someone can give me: a) A target event, b) Contact details (pref. email) for the organisers, c) Who wants/needs access, and d) General scope of where images would be used; then, I can put together a letter, send as PDF to org and would-be photographer, and we see where things go from there. (Yes, it's a bit of social engineering to make this work.) --Brian McNeil / talk 12:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds perfect. Let me hunt down some of that info.TCO (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. If there's a specific event, I can probably track down who to contact quite quickly. That's not always something I'd recommend having visible in-public once known.
  2. Since I don't have one of my older machines available to me, I've not got my "Request for reporter/photoreporter access" templates to hand; they can be readily recreated though.
  3. When sending off emails/letters/whatever, it's always going to need the real name of the person attending. As many people run afoul of Wikipedia Watch and other such nonsense when their real names end up visible on-wiki, I can get those details by email.
  4. Since I'm partly vouching for any individual's ability to attend, do the job, and act professionally, I do like to know they've a good track record on their home project. And, a slightly 'touchy' point is that where the person going to - say - a sporting event to take photographs is a minor, then that really needs mentioned in any letter sent requesting access.

Gotta go out and grab a few bits'n'pieces, hopefully this will make things clearer — I really don't want to have to wade through the massive discussion on enWP. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I get it, man! You are just what the doctor ordered. Let's do this thing! Can you please read the post linked here and coordinate with Dillif? I think looking at his user page will put any worries to rest about the professionalism and age and all that. TCO (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Billy West interview

What reminded you of this article? (Because, you see, I'm quite sure I first saw it in the archives within the past day or two (it made an impression when I saw it), but can't remember what led me to it.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subtle Spam?

Hi Brian. I've got a noob question for you. Three recently created articles here, (How Many Embryos Must Have Transferred In IVF?, Convenience Store Worker Robbed and Fired In His Job, Infectious Reactions of “Bath Salts”), smell very strongly of subtle spam. It's the last paragraph of each that caught my eye. Do you have a Speedy deletion policy here? Would it be applied in these cases? - Davecrosby uk (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, Cirt is usually pretty fast on the CU-zapping. If you see the same again, don't hesitate to add to the CU page yourself.
Good to see another Blit on here. I'm pretty much of the opinion - backed with experience - that people with ready access to BBC News Online fare better on here than those with Fox and co. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Whoa!

Nah...I lurk around. I just have been busy with work and other personal crap. In regards to your recognition comment, can you be more specific? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be awesome. I still would like to some day try our own fundraiser for WN. Recognition would be great. With the protests going on around the US, citizen journalism has become much more reliable than MSM (not that it wasn't already). DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we can get you back to writing, then I'll be happy to include you in the initial batch of folks getting IDs.
I'd also hope to be 'reactivating' BrianNZ too, since he's nearing the end of his studies — and a large tranche of the ID funding is coming from down under. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will do the best I can. I can't make any promises as of yet. But I will absolutely do whatever I can. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon)

Hi Brian - One tiny error on the reporter card template at File:Sample_reporter_card.jpg. You might notice that it says "a 501(c)...". There are several parts of section 501(c), and the specific one under which the Foundation is tax exempt is 501(c)3. It's customary to use the text in that format, so "a 501(c)3 organization" or "501(c)3 non-profit charity" or something of that type. Thanks! Philippe (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I'll correct my templates to reflect this. Definitely needing done before we start getting ID cards made up. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

regarding the blackout

I've noticed you seem to have strongly favoured this. I did not, but I appreciate it when my faulty reasoning is pointed out or I'm shown where I've got my facts wrong. I accordingly invite comments on this (admittedly lengthy) blogpost of mine.--Bdell555 (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

es.wikinews (again)

Hello! Do you need a translation of the identification card of reporters accredited to Spanish? --MadriCR (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Wikinewsie........

....nevermind....I got in.Bddpaux (talk) 04:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yeah, I responded to the Wikinewsie email, then scratched my head over the earlier one.
Incidentally, I'm midway through moving the hosting. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Brian, I sent you a response to your address at wikinewsie. If you didn't get it, I can figure out another way to get it to you. Crtew (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I got it (brian dot mcneil at wikinewsie dot org) But, we're moving hosting. brian dot mcneil at o2 dot co dot uk will avoid that.
One of the main points I wanted to bring up is your students' article heading for FA status. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just left a long note on the article talk (because I lacked both time and ability to write a short one), and would deeply appreciate input from more clueful reviewers (eg, present company). (And I'm now about to be late for a dentist's appointment.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much

Brian, thanks ever so much for your comments about me. Most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syria videos

I'll ask tonight if somebody can do the Syria story using your video. I left a note on B. activist's page about the format that the story would take, if you want to answer there. Crtew (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm more than happy to work on other video edits; the point has been to demonstrate that we can do such work. A huge number of people around such video reports may well land on Wikinews, I want their work valued, published, and build upon.. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE:'Cold War'

Actually, Hague has called it 'new cold war' in [1]. As far as cold war being proper noun is considered, I think it is used both as a general term and to specify 1945-91 period. (See w:Cold War and w:Cold war (general term)) Srinivas 16:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having read that, I agree. As long as we link to that article to avoid similar misconceptions to my own with readers. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To avoid confusions, could we remove the cold war from the title and the article? Srinivas 04:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BRS's link clears things up, I don't think it's needed. We can fend off people in the comments namespace as-needed now. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restoring myself :)

Thanks for the comment Brian. I've had enough of sitting out in the cold, playing through in my mind who I should be working for. If I can't co-exist peacefully between here and the other place, I don't deserve to work for either :) A lot's happened to me in the last 5 months, between my head injury, losing my job, finding another job and getting my life back to rights, so it's about time I fixed everything else I buggered up too. Nice to be back! BarkingFish (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're getting a fair number of media mentions at the moment. All down to Mike_H. He's been named by The Advocate as one of their "40 under 40" for 2012 — most influential in the GLBT community. And, virtually every report cites Wikinews as somewhere he used to work. So, a bit of late-night work to populate Category:Mike Halterman (Wikinewsie) and need to look for some of the stuff he did that merits the FA badge. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accreditation Request

I'm unclear as to whether I have a pending accreditation request. Another user indicated that he had copied my application elsewhere and that I needed to re-apply, but my user page indicates that I have two accreditation requests pending. Also, as to my editing credits, the application form explicitly says it is not limited to Wikinews contributors, but to other Wiki projects as well. Is this incorrect?

Did Wiki once issue accreditation cards, but stopped doing so? Permanently? Dwight Burdette (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • What used to happen was one contributor in the US managed printing of an ID which people could laminate themselves. We are partway through getting more professional IDs issued, but not there just yet.
  • The people on Wikinews who would vote one way or the other on issuing credentials are most-swayed by contributions on this project; that is, a clear demonstration that you can write to the substantially different Style Guide in-place here. Contributions elsewhere can certainly be taken into consideration, and have been in the past.
Given you are trying to, mainly, obtain politician photographs, I suggest having a word with William S. Saturn who has done a good deal of work on 2nd-tier US candidates. I've got a load of work to do on a "Code of Conduct" as the last stumbling block to Wikimedia UK ordering professional photo ID cards for us with built-in security features.
Once you've had a chat with William, I'd be happy to go over "letters of authority" as an interim mechanism to get you past 'roid-filled security guards.
There's a little more on the current situation over on the Editors´ blog, and on the Water cooler. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm surprised to learn that the clear implication in the instructions that contributions to other Wiki projects are as acceptable as contributions to Wikinews is obviously untrue. I've asked simple questions and I cant get a simple answer-Do I have a request pending or not? As for contacting someone else, I've jumped through enough hoops on this and I'm tired of the runaround. If there is a mechanism you call 'letters of authority' that you can tell me about, I'd appreciate hearing about it. Dwight Burdette (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • From the policy: "A good request will also point to articles the requesting user has created on Wikinews." and "Accreditation criteria include, but are not limited to: 1. Being an established, and published, Wikinews contributor. (Or a contributor to another Wikimedia Foundation project who is in good standing there). 2. Having started, and substantially contributed to, several Wikinews articles; or, a corpus of quality contributions elsewhere on Wikimedia Foundation projects. 3. Demonstrable commitment to NPOV, as shown by contributions and the text of the application.".
    No offense intended but, did you read the policy, or just the request page? "Contributions to Wikinews" appears multiple times for good reason, and that's not how you've presented an interpretation of the policy.
  • You have not, yet, actually succeeded in posting an actual request on the page. You don't clear the actual text in the box, you append your username to create a sub-page with your request which is automatically included in the list of requests (the clue is in "after the slash"). I've no idea how you conclude you've any request, when one is not listed on the page.
  • I would hardly class what's been done as a "runaround"; you've written no articles on Wikinews, thus have no history of journalistic work for us to look at. The credentials are not issued simply for use in obtaining content for other projects.
I referred you to William as he has the experience dealing directly with US politicians. That would, I strongly suspect, permit you to put forward a far stronger case for your accreditation.
Lastly, you might want to see this page with a selection of closed requests. Policy is a living thing, and what's written rarely keeps pace with what is current. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Homs article

Bluntly. What can you do to help with review of this Lovecraftian horror? If I die of heart failure trying to cope, that's not going to help Wikinews or coverage of the story. --Pi zero (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! Lovecraft is compelling. :P Lemmie look whilst my new install builds itself. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

....and well, since you asked: a rooster "welcoming the morning sun" fits well in a Walt Whitman poem, but I'm not so sure about an article for an international news source. and, "Moments later, a second strike on the pipeline is in-shot, also to the left of the camera's view. The acrid smoke from this strike quickly begins to grow." hmmmmm, again this tedious play-by-play-by-exhausting play of things that are "in-shot".....and I haven't the faintest idea how we can tell if smoke is acrid by looking at it. But, let me reiterate, the beefiness of the article itself overshadows any major issues, stylistically........this is A VERY IMPORTANT contribution to the project. Bddpaux (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have stated before that wasn't my intention. It didn't go as I had hoped it would and given the circumstances, I managed to get more than I thought I was going to get to even get the kind of article started that told this particular story. But all that aside, where else do you see this coverage? It was an in-depth article, but that had always been my intention. Now all that aside, I find some of the comments made to and or about me in relation to this article, a bit insulting. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is out to insult you. As I said, you're out of practice. You pulled in plenty of copy to work with once it became clear the source was drying up, but it wasn't in any way planned structure — it couldn't be by the nature of it. You're quick to spot potential criticism, but I'm seeing precious little acknowledgement of the copyedit and review work — or that you accept its necessity. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually do and am grateful for them. I accept copy edit is always necessary on any/every article regardless of its size or nature. By comments to me, that the size of this article or the reporting was too much. It almost makes me feel like I am being told to don't bother next time. Now I know better than that, but that's just how I feel. Almost like this was more a burden. If so then I apologize. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with DF1024. I like it when we get big articles. Reviewing them is incredibly tough but, as whoever pushed to fb rightly said, very worth it. A tad uncomfortable to see such strong hints to keep it shorter; I'm reminded of the TOG style point that summed up as "Nobody reads long articles. We don;t want them." Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking for myself:
  • Not less, differently. Something like this needs to be done differently in future. No reduction of size or depth is necessary.
  • To be clear on the "needs" part: I've done nine-hour-plus marathon reviews; but this, left on my own I honestly don't think I'd've been able to complete.
  • The technique I believe would have worked if we'd thought of it (no fault to anyone we didn't), and that could work in future because we've now thought of it and can apply it without knowing for sure whether it will be needed: publish shortish articles and then cut-and-paste whole blocks from them into a later article. I really should write a rant on the subject for the blog.
---Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article was not unwelcome. Were that the case, the requisite work would not have been put into getting it through review and published. pizero's point is, it was almost too much to take on. The way it came about didn't readily lend itself to a piecemeal review, which would have speeded publication turnaround. The end-result is a great piece [it was me pushed it to FB, BRS; so the "worth it" comment is mine].

This seems to be a slightly different tack from that most-commonly taken, though. This is where a discussion post-publication is worthwhile. With, I assume, several people pushing this out via their own social media accounts, it was pulling 500+ hits/hr during the first few hours of publication. That's what makes looking at why this was a success, and how we can more-readily get stuff like this out the door, important.

As Pi zero says, and a comment I've made elsewhere in the past, the _ideal_ would be pieces like this built-up across the publication of multiple articles. It's something I commonly see on BBC reports; they pull paragraphs wholesale out of earlier work to add substance to the latest report. Done badly, that's filler. Done well, it allows a series of minor reports over a week's time to become a "Sunday feature" that could hang on some OR and be expanded with prior coverage by any number of contributors. (I know, we lack the active base for such now, but as a technique it could bring newer contributors' work into larger feature pieces.) --Brian McNeil / talk 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for help with title

Never written a wiki news article before. :) Trying to figure out what I am doing. There is one more match tonight. I want to get pictures from it before I try to publish. Just yeah, not certain what I am writing. :) --LauraHale (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede is everything, and you've not currently got one on the article. ;-). In two, possibly three short at a maximum, four, sentences answer as many of the 5Ws and H as you can. Don't tell the whole story,but lead into further exposition. How is, probably, the one key point to summarise in-the-extreme if included in the lede of a sports report.
And, the more use of active voice the better. I still rely on tools like After the Deadline to highlight such and rewrite to avoid. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


can you jump over here and take a look? Wikinews:Water cooler/technical (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

that was me, BTW. Bddpaux (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of accredited reporters

Would you mind listing me in the "big list"? ...oh, and by the way: The Editor's Blog is cool!!!! Bddpaux (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

will do! Bddpaux (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
112744 Bddpaux (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that's high. Mine is 1225. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I'm not showing up alphabetically. [I've really gotta switch to de-caf!] Bddpaux (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popcorn time!

Put yer feet up and enjoy the latest Dramahz Studio production, and enjoy some nice salty popcorn. Consider it a reward for recent comments. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

....and again.

Still having Toolserver problems. [See above.] Bddpaux (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The WhatAmerica Template

Hi Brian, Please don't take this personally as it's not meant that way. But I think you should delete your new "WhatAmerica" template. I would ask you to please consider the following points: it is opinion disguised as editing, it is a misrepresentation of the Wikinews style guide (which may make it grounds for speedy delete of a template), and it is condescending. I believe that you would find it reasonable that this matter should be a point for a style discussion rather than a movement to rename an entire people on their behalf. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Crtew (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit protected request

Hello Brian, can you please make this edit in {{social bookmarks}}? I explained my rationale there. Thank you in advance! —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 7 March, 2012; 11:09

This is an OR piece by Cirt. I was uncomfortable both with the state of the article, and with my own ability to suggest how to proceed. I've invited BRS's input, and (after hesitating to bother you) I invite yours also. Talk:Sandra Fluke insists she will not be silenced. --Pi zero (talk) 03:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[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) 05:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See, the reason I was wanting the Toolserver bit to be updated/reauthorized is so I can just click on "articles created" for a given user......instead of having to wade pell-mell through all their contributions.Bddpaux (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


....cause I'm weird this way, I want to (I think just for entertainment's sake) look at the last few years' worth of accredition requests and reviewer requests. There's alot to learn from those dialogues (term lightly used). Where can I do that? Bddpaux (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D'oh!! Big fat brain cramp on my part!! Bddpaux (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews is awesome

I wrote my first report yesterday, and now I have a few more I'm waiting for review on. Wikinews = AWESOME. :) SarahStierch (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Good to hear, Sarah. Sorry I'm unable to help with reviewing, due to a dead laptop I'm restricted to access from the local library which is usually only one hour a day. Emails get caught up on, and little else. Reviewing a submission properly can take a couple of hours. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)`Reply[reply]


Hello, I wanted to remind you the accreditations in es.wikinews. Regards :D --MadriCR (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please help? I'm not trying tom spam, but no one is listening. I think the article is neutrally written and well sourced. Labor reporter (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WN:AAA thread. --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mr. Chomping at the bit!

...just wondering if it's too early to declare a consensus on my request for reviewer status? Bddpaux (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<interjecting> Nowadays we give it a week, at least (sometimes longer, even much longer, if it seems appropriate, though I'd see no call for that here). In the early days of flaggedrevs, some requests were closed quickly, but it was decided thereafter that oughtn't be done. My self-nom was closed after less than a day, but I noted a few months later someone got trouted for an early closing (that wasn't even as early as mine, iirc). And I didn't even disagree with the trouting; I was just interested to realize how best practice had solidified since my promotion. --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's cool.....I think the page says the decision is made after 48 hours.....but I won't be up tonight biting my nails, I assure you. Bddpaux (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh. Went back to check what it does say. (We often lose track of what these things actually say, which is how they sometimes get badly out-of-date with current practice; even now there are a few things lying around clearly pre-flaggedrevs.) Generally a minimum of 48 hours, and if it hasn't been closed after a week feel free to ask an admin about it. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2 minor nibbles

  • User:James Pain is listed as a reviewer, but his user page says he's "no longer active, working for Skype". He's made no edits of any nature in almost 2 years. Just an FYI.
  • I just can't completey get my hands around how we're supposed to be handling Shorts right now.....are the article(s) supposed to be snippets of things we've already published here or (so long as they're properly sourced), contributors can drop in anything they want ??? I need some clarity on this. -Bddpaux (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shorts are small items on stories we haven't otherwise covered. Two sources per item, and at least two items (at least three ideally, but two will do). Personally I tend to break up a large paragraph into a lede and a second paragraph; not sure there's a set standard on how to manage that (but inserting or removing a paragraph break, I've generally considered within-bounds for an independent reviewer.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One value of Wikinews Shorts that really hasn't been capitalized on much is to highlight events that we're not covering in longer stories, like the ones mentioned on Wikipedia's "In the News".Crtew (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps. And yet. Our strength lies in quality before quantity (not rather than quantity, though the difference may be thin in practice). Given our limited resources, shorts tend to pull us toward the wrong end of the spectrum.
The amount of effort necessary to write a decent shorts item isn't much less than that to write a minimal standalone article; and the review effort for the standalone article isn't much more than for the item. --Pi zero (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I definitely have to side with Pi zero here; Each item in a short needs a minimum of two sources — the same as any article — so why not just write a short article, which will take around the same time to review as the single-paragraph item in the shorts?
If you still want the shorts, say as a script, then they can quickly, and easily, be verified from the reviewed and published article. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

U.S. study says Type 2 diabetes in youth is hard to control

This article is currently pending review.....I already not-readied it a couple of days ago. It does have OR, but everything is/was dated April 30th......I want to call it stale, but I'm not sure what's most-prudent, since OR has a tendency to kinda re-align calls on staleness. Can I get a little guidance? Bddpaux (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hidden category

How do I create a hidden category for myself/my articles? Bddpaux (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Model: Category:Brian McNeil (Wikinewsie). --Pi zero (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Australian media focuses on Olympic prospects against US for women's basketball

Australian media focuses on Olympic prospects against US for women's basketball . Please review. :) --LauraHale (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to more active contributing/editing/reviewing

No, ... not right now; but, I'm in the process of accepting a job offer that will see me back online a good deal more than was possible when my laptop died.

Obviously, the flip-side of that is I'll be in an office 8 hrs a day. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edinburgh central library panorama

I stiched together those 15 images you posted on Commons. If you had a particular use in mind, it turned out fairly well and is ready. Kbh3rd 03:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

McDonald Road library

Another one, this of the McDonald Road library. It looks like you had multiple exposures with different color balance. I let the program (Hugin) choose the images to use, and it didn't turn out too badly, though it does appear that it used some from one set and some from the other. Fortunately it did not use the image with the large white van in it. Also, I used the 400px thumbnails from the image description pages so that it wouldn't take all evening to chew on all 25 images, so the result is smaller but still reasonably sized. -- Kbh3rd 01:58 UTC, 20 May 2012

  • I did try, by focusing using the same point, to make all pics the same balance. I suppose what I should start looking at now is how to run the camera manually. That way I can find a mid-point for balance/exposure, then set those as the settings for a whole panoramic set. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: (Ur bio) ? Born "Feb" before MOONWALK ?

Wow.. You were born in February 1969

Re: [quote]

it amuses me to frame it, "I'm so old I was born before Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon"; my birth was during the preceding February. That was in central Scotland, which I've now moved back to 


?..oooh? You must be especially old.


I was "failing english" according to the "letter" I opened in tht same month (Dunstan High School, Alexandra, NZ - English .. 34% = "fail").

OMG .. that amkes me an "ancient" .. Must be why my (old_fodgie) kiwifarmboy "style" of useless typo isn't understood by someone so young. Thankyou for "not" being the correct "Brian".

I wanted "Brian" the Wikipedian Beaurocrat - whom lives in New Zealand:

(not a "riingin" from Scotland).

Cheers. (p.s; I was born in '53)

QUIX4U2 (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edinburgh Central Library interior

I do not believe that there is enough coverage in those pictures you uploaded of the interior dome of this library. Here are the 5 images stitched together and uncropped. -- Kbh3rd 22:32, 23 May 2012

  • Argh! I _thought_ I'd got enough coverage, sorry about that. There should be more photos, and I seem to have lost a few when transferring them out of the camera. When I get the chance I'm going to run an undeletion program on the memory card and see if I can retrieve more. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello again. The Spanish Wikinews community elected me as a reporter and I want to know if you could do the email to reporters using accredited. Thanks ! --MadriCR (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the review :)

Thank you for the review. :) I was a bit excited because the article from Friday was published before most of the rest of the media covered it and the one last night was within a few hours of the Sydney Morning Herald. I have a fondness for the team because they were the first one I wrote about on Wikinews, and they are one of Australia's gold medal chances. :) --LauraHale (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost back

  • I'm assuming I'll be able to take this laptop home, so once I get the HBB billing back up-to-date, I'll be on from there. In any case for the interim, I'll have to sort things out here for work—before they whizz me off to the U.S.
Yes, Pi zero, this means I will be back to helping with reviews. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you Brian for your prompt response and help. Yes, indeed, I noticed there were many articles related to w:King's College London. Anyway, thanks very much. --Merlaysamuel (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Brian, can you also add the King's College category to this article. It quotes a King's professor. Thank you --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  15:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brian seems to have headed offline, so I did it myself. :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, nobody can complain; in work 10 minutes early, didn't leave until 30 minutes after finishing time, and didn't take full 1hr lunchbreak. In 't library now hacking some sense onto this laptop. Home BB is down/suspended. Should get restored sometime next week. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Sandman and Brian! :) --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hodgetts makes it a Tassie trio for London 2012 paralympics

Hi - thanks for your help with my article - it's my first attempt at a wikinews item so I'm trying to get my head around it all. cheers 07:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Copyedits

Hi Brian, thanks for the tips. Your explanation sounds fair enough to me. I'm not really used to journalistic style; I even occasionally have problems like this when editing Wikipedia's Signpost. Graham87 (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the kind words and the warm welcome! I don't want to introduce deliberate typos into the style guide, though, but LOL at the idea! Graham87 (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! Graham87 (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re "athletics athlete", I of course agree with the characterization 'dreadful phrasing'; however, thinking in terms of verification I checked the sources... and was unable to find any mention at all of Greg Smith. Not sure what was going on there, but the immediate consequence was I couldn't verify accuracy of "track and field" in that context, so I conservatively reverted it (though, awkwardly, LauraHale had sighted the previous edit in the meantime — evidence I'd taken overlong in checking the sources). --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit naughty, but all the stuff on Greg is sourced on his Wikipedia entry. In that regard I probably was a bit lax in source-checking, but I'd seen it when checking Wikilinks. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Style Guide Numbers

Y'know, I just don't know. Here's my thing: leave it just the way it is right now. But, I've seen AGE RELATED things written out (in LOADS of news-type sources) as, "19-year-old man plays ukulele while sky diving".....etc. etc. I think that's really all I bring to the table, opinion-wise. Bddpaux (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I didn't realize that this is a non-GS wiki. I apologize for that. Bennylin (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well, you know now. ;-)
Nothing major to worry about, but you had me wondering what on earth was going on where I didn't recognise you as someone who'd been through the admin voting process. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reporter notes

Hi! I have no idea what is normally expected of reporter notes, so I've added my details of the paralympics announcement to Talk:Australian Paralympic cycling team officially revealed for London 2012 in the hope that it is of some use. I will get Ruth to confirm and clarify. If I've stuffed everything up just let me know. :) This side of the projects is new to me. - Bilby (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that. :) I do a lot of copyvio work on WP, so it is always a concern. But I thought some notes might help. - Bilby (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sourcing question and apology

I'll be there for the workshop tomorrow. I just relocated it to wikinews. Sorry about that drama. Stressed over other things. :( --LauraHale (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That said, I have a sourcing question for FanFiction.Net adult content purge felt across fandom two weeks on. If you look at the talk page, the amount of sources I uses feels pretty excessive. I'm also having problems linking to Tumblr pages. Do I still need to cite these pages beyond the talk collaboration page? --LauraHale (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FanFiction.Net adult content purge felt across fandom two weeks on

Thanks for the review of FanFiction.Net adult content purge felt across fandom two weeks on. I realise what awfulness was involved with the sourcing and trying to make sure it was neutral. (I wasn't sure on the title either. Would have been okay with a name change had it been required.) When I wrote it, I was kind of aiming for featured, which also explains the length and I wanted to make sure the scope of the problem and that people were still complaining even two weeks later to make sure it passed timeliness. My mild fear is there will be complaining anyway about neutrality. --LauraHale (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Meh. The timely part of the story is the ongoing complaining. What could anyone say, or input, to make a news article on that (with extensive background) more neutral? Answer: Probably nothing. Don't get hung up on the Wikipedian view of NPoV; news is quite, quite different. I doubt you'll face anything as tiresome as this bullshit (who'da thunk it? an industry lobbyist lies, distorts the truth, and tries to avoid admitting who he is). --Brian McNeil / talk 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutrality with potential COI was less a Wikipedia thing in this case than a fandom one. :) Hence the disclosures on the talk page about potential problems. I think it was neutral enough that past relationships and conflicts (two years ago) shouldn't be found in it and worked the text to make sure if they complained, it was clear. Maybe they just won't see it. :) That they were still going on about this and signing petitions all this time later, and sites were still dealing with the fall out, made it clear that it should be timely to me. (FF.Net is the biggest archive of its kind, and the amount of purged material was high.) Two pieces of extensive OR in one day though... oye. Going to not do that again. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This guy is a derivation of a user name I've blocked for spamming in a couple of places recently IIRC. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


[2]--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

change username request

Dear Brian,

on I requested to change my usename from "Andr€ Klo€r" (replace the € in e) into "Watisfictie" in Wikinews. This is in line with the name I use in other wiki projects. I would like to have my current wikinews username (which is my real name) removed from Google listings, since it now occurs on the first page, while other pages are of more relevance to me. I hope you can help me with this. Sorry for the somewhat discriptive way: I wrote my username with €'s in stead of e's, otherwise it would result in another google entry with my real name. --Watisfictie (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just self-sighted a revision I did to the lead articles over at Portal:United States. I simply removed an ancient headline, and intend to move "down" the older stuff and add newer stuff. Is self-sighting that kind of stuff kosher? Bddpaux (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ñe, I don't think so. Self-sighting templates is not against the rules, I believe. After all, you're not adding content that needs reviewing (obvious exceptions are vandalism, but I don't think you're gonna vandalize the portals :-P) Diego Grez (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, Brian, I did not see the closure e-mail until now, can you please tell me how can I login to the new e-mail? Do I require a new password? (duh) Diego Grez (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your new password should've been one of the last emails to the godaddy account. The new account is accessible via the link from, and there are instructions for setting up a client there too. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I request renaming my following accounts:

  • محمد الجداوي → Avocato
  • GedawyBot → AvocatoBot
  • Confirmation link: [3]
  • Reason: Privacy reasons

Thanks in advance.--M.Gedawy 07:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Brian....jog my memory......I know that godaddy is no longer our place for e-mail. Where now, though? Bddpaux (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, gee whiz........I used and the only password I'd ever used at godaddy......but I can't get in. Can I get a re-set or something? Bddpaux (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem was, I thought all things godaddy were totally dead to all of us, and I didn't even know how to connect to their client; but I figured it out......everything's cool now.Bddpaux (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews:Paralympic Games

Can you provide feedback on Wikinews:Paralympic Games to improve this? I'd like to try to engage some of the sport community on Wikipedia and request help, along with asking a few Wikinews contributors to commit to reviewing during the Paralympics so things can be done as timely manner as possible. If we aren't able to get a commitment, we might have some problems. :( Anyway, feedback and help asking Wikinewsies for help would be much appreciated.--LauraHale (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nag nag nag: Reporter accreditation

Bidgee's request. :) Please deal with? It would be handy for this weekend. --LauraHale (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • No, nothing really. I've got to re-make the business card template (on an inaccessible HDD at the moment); when I've fixed that, the "sneaky" thing to do is browse Vistaprint's website a few times, but buy nothing. If you've not got an adblocker, or you temporarily disable it, you should then start getting special offers on the price of business cards. The 250 I got in 2009 are down to not-a-lot-left, but I hand them out like confetti.
The hosting company are looking into issues with MediaWiki not sending out emails for passwords (it's not a MW problem, but a server-side setup one). When that's resolved, you'll get access to --Brian McNeil / talk 13:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to userspace. --Pi zero (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also User:Brian McNeil/Story preparation/Wikinews interviews: Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister. --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for saving 'em, maybe one day I'll get the opportunity to share a curry with Alex. But, RMS has provided decent copy on other stuff. Just need to be ready to display clue about FSF, GNU/Linux et-al. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How should I proceed?

I've done some of the required reading and will study the basics. As I mentioned on my talk here, I'll stick to aggregation until I understand preferred style. Better for me to keep my errors minor and useful for now. I like bold critique; my background has taught me to value the opinions of experienced others. If I spoke without forethought, please forgive me and teach me the straight way. I've looked at some featured work here, and I'll do my best to emulate their style while I practice. BusterD (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Brian. I was wondering if you'd be able to help me develop this article at some point today. I would really appreciate your assistance. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Reading the press book I sent to the scoop list:

Guest passes for both the Main
Press Centre and the Paralympic
Village Plaza will provide
approved visitors short-term access
to those venues. Guest passes
will be valid for one day only,
until midnight on the day of issue.
Guest passes are non-transferable.
Individuals accredited for the MPC
who can demonstrate a valid
reason for the guest’s entry can
request guest passes for visitors
who do not have accreditation for
the MPC. Application forms will
be available online and also from
the main help desk at the MPC.
The forms must be submitted online
or in person at one of the guest
pass offices no later than 18:00
the day before the requested entry.
The exact procedure for requesting
MPC guest passes will be posted
on The Exchange in due course.

THAT text. If you or tommorris are interested, we could try for the Saturday or Sunday before the Games. --LauraHale (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Sounds good, but is somewhat dependent on a speedy repayment of the 'excessive' expenses I've incurred here in the states. Amongst other things, I was hit with the cost of my hotel here in NYC, and for some reason the AA flight back from St. Louis was not running; luckily I persuaded them to pass me over to Delta rather than fly to Newark via Timbuktu, but Delta stiffed me charges for my bags. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PR on Wikipedia

Hey. You mentioned "BRS" was interested in aviation disasters and could potentially use an expert.

Is BRS a person? You'll have to forgive me if I'm asking dumb questions. :-)

King4057 (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello! Need your help. Need to create global account, for this administrators should rename user Barrister (1 edit) on smth else. TIA-- (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


well, I can see my Dropbox here at home just fine......and it has "Photos" and "Public" in it.....fine. But not the others.....I followed the link in the wikinewsie e-mail. Maybe it was "Operator malfunction" on my end!! :] Any ideas? I wonder if a link can be sent to me that will then throw those folder into my folders? --Bddpaux (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you still can't see it, let me know and I can give your e-mail address access to the folder. --LauraHale (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Up and running.....did a threw it over to Journos' workspace within about 30 seconds!! Nice little tool!! --Bddpaux (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

files being copied from dropbox

Hi. I uploaded about 8 images to the enwp Wikinews dropbox folder and none were copied over to Wikinews. :( Do you know what is going on? --LauraHale (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Going to take a look.
You are checking emails? Have you found out if/when the tour is to avoid clash with workshop? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As workshop is tomorrow, I am doing the tour today. :D --LauraHale (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Couldn't spot the script bug, so zapped it and overwrote with the JWS one (then edited to point here).
Need to fix it to handle caps file extensions too. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I copied them to convert with the hope that they would copy over there. Ooops! I apologise for the crap I am about to write and am writing. :( It is not my finest effort. Thanks for looking into it for me. I was hoping to do some Wikinews picture stuff and that was a potential major hinderance.--LauraHale (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're writing crap?

Nah, I am. I'm trying to create a purty presentation that works over teh intarwebz. (And, I'm out of coffee so drinking green tea :P)--Brian McNeil / talk 10:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I has low self esteem regarding my writing! :D Anyway, I found a female sport journalist from Zimbabwe who probably regrets talking to me. ;) I shall interview her on her work. :D I just need to arrange that. I've offered to take pictures for her at the Paralympic village tour if I can interview a Zimbabwean competitor. :D (Er. By crap, I do mean to a degree that my writing is a bit boring and I feel it is newsworthy because these things start soon. The information isn't being covered much by others. The British are writing about it but the slant is THEY ARE IN OUR TOWN! HA HA HA HA! not the history of the competitors or what sport they are playing or even, lord forbid, what their names are.) --LauraHale (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Olympics was much more enjoyable from a distance. Being in the US for most of it, I was seeing it through a different lens. As soon as I got back I wanted to strangle BBC news presenters for being such fawning muppets. And, Boris? They should've left him on that blasted zip wire for the rest of the games.
You're pulling at a lot of 'threads' in small articles, I suspect you want to look at the opening ceremony as a target for a larger piece (aim for FA?). That's where you might-well want to collect a bunch of phone numbers and call round for quotes afterwards.
Need to get back to this Prezi, taking an age and I've quite a bit to put in. Forced to do it on Windows because the editor is not-that-great within Firefox. I am, however, on IRC and Skype at the moment. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

London meetup


I have finished my other event now but see from your outcome report that your Wikinews seminar is over. If there is some continuation of activity this evening (Sunday) or tomorrow (Bank Hol), please post here or on my talk or email me.

Andrew Davidson (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Everyone in-attendance has gone off for a meal. For various reasons I was attending remotely.
I'll look into organising a couple more in the future (give about a month gap). I can have the presentation a good-deal more polished in that time, and make sure I've got offline access to it. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Brian, what is the policy on providing an archived copy of a page in the sources section (in addition to the original) in order to avoid link-rot? I have been doing this for some time on Wikipedia and it really works. See this example: Franklin Sibly where both are still live at the moment but where the archived version would preserve the content if the oirginal ever goes dead. It happens a lot and more and more over time. WebCite provide this service for free. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • We apply full protection. That, on Wikinews, is what we call archiving. We can't host copies of sources, that would be a copyright violation. Linking to another site hosting the same article as was used in sourcing would be an, admittedly only 'technical', breach of preserving what was known at the time; and, personally, I wouldn't trust publishers not to tweak the content, or hide the questionable. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just to be clear, what I am proposing is not that Wikinews archive third party content but that reports include a link immediately after each source in the form of an "Archived here" hyperlink (as I did in the article mentioned above) to a WebCite page which holds a copy of the relevant page. I have found this sort of archiving to be invaluable on Wikipedia in avoiding link-rot. Once captured by WebCite the pages cannot be changed by the original author. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • <adding two cents' worth> Such archival links can be provided on the talk page. We provide the list of sources as a record of where we got the information from, giving credit where due, not as an encylcopedic source of additional information; there's no call to complicate the format of the article Sources section for the sake of archiving other sites' news. --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK but the idea was not to archive other sites news, but to archive in full the sources on which our news is based. I have just tried a few of the 2004 ones and already quite a number of the links are now dead. For instance Bulk of Iraqi debt to Paris Club to be forgiven where one is dead, one goes to the site but not the original page and one is live. Since almost all links are likely to go dead eventually, it shows little foresight not to archive them now. I will use the talk page as suggested. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually, I'd say it showed little foresight in 2004, because in 2004 we did not have rigorous review, therefore the contents of our articles lacked uniform credibility in their own right. Now, however, we have rigorous review. An article that's been reviewed has credibility on its own, regardless of whether its sources are still available; whilst an article that doesn't have credibility on its own is not a news article (just a blog entry). This is a profound difference between Wikinews and Wikipedia, and one I've been slowly coming to appreciate over three years or so on Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On Wikipedia, it matters. Because Wikipedia has no credibility of its own, and doesn't even want to have credibility of its own. It's not a question of why to accept it, but of whether we have any reason to put effort into doing something we've no need for, when we already perpetually struggle to do the things here that actually matter. In the long run, the contents of the source articles aren't something we have any particular reason to provide. --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • <grumbles> It's Wikinews, not "WikiNews, I note you don't CamelCase the name of The Other PlaceTM. Besides, what is more important to Wikinews than link-rot, is how many sources now charge for their archives, whereas we'll always be open. As has been pointed out regarding WebCite in the past: What is to prevent the archived-in-this-manner article being withdrawn, a retraction or correction issued? Ever since the Internet Archive started playing "too nicely" with commercial interests there's been no genuine, reliable, way to beat link-rot. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal thing

Thanks for klling. Found on accident. Did not show the country articles. :( Hence not knowing what to do with. If you get a chance to review any of the many things needed Paralympic reviewing, that would be great as the backlog is going to start looking eek. :( --LauraHale (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reviewing help

Hey. Er.  :( The articles I will be writing will have a purpose. And the ones I have written do have a purpose. I do apologise for the madness that I will be doing in making things worse. Any assistance I can provide you to make things easier to review articles faster without losing quality would be good. :) I can try to get you an Aussie pin. --LauraHale (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article reviews

Can you try to do some reviewing. :( There are currently 6. :( I can try to review some things later tonight that are not Paralympics to help out. --LauraHale (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: AvocatoBot on Egnlish Wikinews

Thanks for notifying me. Can I make just two or three edits with my bot's account at it's userspace, without getting blocked?--Avocato (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If the bot is purely for userspace, simply put details of intended use on WN:BOT, the usual "big red switch", and nobody is likely to then object to a few test edits to verify it works. The problem we have here is people who turn up and expect to run all over main namespace and don't even notice 90%+ is fully protected. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 23:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paralympic article backlog take two

We currently have seven unreviewed articles, many of them Paralympic articles. Any help in reviewing these today would be much appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{replied|User talk:Rayboy8#Costa Rican quake}}

Almost there... more requests...

We have four days of the Paralympics left. :) Almost done. (I'm getting as close to tired of writing as I am you're probably getting of writing. Sleep would be nice.) We're backlogged again with 6 unreviewed articles. Help with that would be fantastic. --LauraHale (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you spare a review

Could you spare a review of this piece? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out and about and away

My flight leaves tonight local London time around 9pm. I will be checking out of the hotel around 8am local time. I likely won't be available for 48+ hours (36 hours to get back to Canberra once airborne I thin. Track QF2 tonight!) so not sure what to do about articles submitted and potential problems. Need transcription assistance on those ones with the Pacific Island nations listed on Brian's talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about your proposal

Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Privilege_exposure_limitation = what about Checkuser? Also, is there a provision to email and talk page notify these people, before rights removal? -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a shot at those. :-)
  • No provision currently for checkusers, which imho is reasonable because they're likely to take extra care for security, and a good idea because it was hard to get a sufficient CU vote through even when the active community was larger than currently.
  • No provision for prior notification is implicitly addressed by the remarks at the top of the thread — essentially, KISS. My earlier proposal, never taken to a vote, included a provision to inform them after the fact, and stuff about under what circumstances restoration of privileges could and could not be fast-tracked, but simplicity has a certain charm.
--Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wise words regarding CU. We'd, potentially, have serious headaches getting new CUs elected at this point in time. I also assume Stewards would look askance at CUs who were never logging in for months on end.
In terms of informing people, Pi zero is again correct. If we go out of our way to chase people who're just about to lose privs, they could make a couple of qualifying edits and vanish for another six-months plus. That's not the point of the proposed changes. Process and policy does evolve over time, those who stay active stay aware of the changes.
I mention password strength as a critical point behind my concerns over unused privileged accounts. There's this checker which will work out the number of bits of entropy in your password. If you've less than 60 bits entropy, you should be changing your password at least every two to three months. You need to be about 80+ bits of entropy to keep the same password for over six months.
What I'd say is, assuming the proposed policy goes into place, people are informed on their talk page after they've been downgraded or lost a privilege. As I say on the introduction to the proposed change, it is not meant to be a reflection on an individual's ability to do the job. If they've set up alerts to get an email notice of a talk page change, come back, change their password (see above) and put in a week or more of work, then I've no problem with them being speedily re-granted the privilege.
We've people with 'crat privs who haven't edited in about two years, admins with no edits in 3+ years. For the latter, assuming you try one password guess every 5 minutes, that's well in-excess of 300,000 attempts at guessing the password. If you're more aggressive and make one guess a minute, that's 1.5 million permutations could've been tried.
A last point on whether or not people should get 'advance warning' would be to refer to the duh-ramah surrounding de-privving Jimbo. That was, for want of a better phrase, "simple accounting". Xe has a Foundation account with which he can carry out Foundation-sanctioned actions. Such actions are the WMF applying an overriding 'editorial control' which absolves everyone active on-project of any responsibility. We can't stop such actions unless we take Wikinews out of the WMF, nor should we seek to stop such actions. But there should be no 'grey area' where people could "go rouge". --Brian McNeil / talk 21:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please see here, would appreciate your input regarding another user altering a suggested link in an article, 5 days post publish. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm leaving this note here as well as on Tom Morris's talk page.

I've submitted for review an additional paragraph, immediately following publication, which I could imagine languishing unreviewed (such things being easily overlooked). --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{replied|User talk:Rayboy8#Scottish police arrest man over four-year-old sexual assault in Clydebank supermarket}}

I'm so sorry, I completely missed that :L --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forwarded 'to scoop'

Hi Brian

When doing original reporting, some Wikinews users say their notes have been "forwarded to scoop". Could you please explain what that this and how I would be able to use it? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice reference?

mention by my uni. --LauraHale (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yep. That's a nice one to have. And, it sez Wikinews; not Wikipedia, not Wikimedia, but the project you put the most into over the Paralympics.
I found the HOPAU list slightly annoying in-that they obsessed over Wikipedia. I know the project is better-known, but getting stuff well-done in Wikinews has it there for more leisurely expansion of Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I went there for Wikinews, not Wikipedia. :D Hence the mention. I'm feeling hesitant to promote this sort of thing out of fear of Gibraltar style blow back. And I'm pretty unpopular with some people. I sent pictures to WMF for the blog but did not hear back. --LauraHale (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has gotten way over my head, in terms of what is and is not sufficient copyright-wise. --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank Dawg this is a comment from you! :P
I studiously ignored the "You haz new messages" banner whilst formulating a response on the article talk.
The author could attach a tonne of scanned notes for their report, and we'd still never publish it. Copyright is the least-significant issue on this; if they want the "news item" (deliberate use of quotes) to end up published here, then they'll be writing virtually from-scratch to comply with the WN:SG et-al. Nothing wrong with a little copyright education, but no point spending two days haggling over that and getting something on their website to subsequently turn round and say "Okay, now comply with our manual of style, our content guide ..."
If Xe wants to parallel publish, without writing two distinct texts from whole cloth, then they need to look at our non-negotiables. The best way to start doing that would be to go through the last six month's articles and pick the ones their publication might have wanted to use (if, say, they were local to them). --Brian McNeil / talk

Re: Makelead


No, I just had a quick look at Bawolff's discussion page, and noticed things related to simple reviewing tool not applied on ar.wn yet. There is a contact name of ar.wp user, I'll try to contact him. Thank you for your advice. --PICAWN (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Privilege expiry

As currently worded, strictly, the policy page says checkusers and oversighters are exempt from losing the review bit. Would you agree that's just an artifact of the wording? I don't see why the reasons for excepting those users would be relevant to the review priv. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yes. In theory, CU or oversight could be granted distinct from any other privilege, and they're a different class of 'administrative' privilege which has less to do with the day-to-day running of a wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Well, it certainly seems they should not be exempt, at the least ... there should be some sort of inactivity policy for them, perhaps a little longer than the others ... but something. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The policy covers some simple common situations, as a first cut. For less common situations, the community can simply use a formal nomination process to remove privs. Checkuser and oversight are less common situations.
I'm psyching myself up to write a clarification onto the policy page, that the exemption applies to expiry of crat and admin but does not exempt from expiry of reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay I'll defer to your judgment and of course the community. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yo, grow up. I can expect that from some user, but you? Also, bitey. - Amgine | t 18:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sent you an email. -- Cirt (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews print edition

Hi, I was looking back at some old water cooler discussion and found some talk about bringing back the wikinews print edition. I believe there was some discussion of people printing it locally and then distributing it. Did this ever get anywhere?

Thanks CalF (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Eh, short answer: No. Long answer, too long to put here; and, it's late.
Would love to see it happen, at the moment a 'realistic' goal would be a weekly publication, and - yes - I'd stick my hand in my pocket to help initial print runs if someone wanted to try it, and try to get local advertisers. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Player information boxes

I'd really like your thoughts on this idea that Laura has cooked up. The point as I understand it is, some players are not (yet) notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. So she was thinking we might have side bars for players, with a bit of personal info. To be reviewed by another reviewer before use. She's got a mock-up at {{Damien Thomlinson}}. I'm of several minds — is this background information such as could go near the bottom of an inverted pyramid, only in a different form —and is that good or bad— or is it poaching on Wikipedia's territory? And is there a way to tweak the idea to improve it? --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not sure. It is quite encyclopedic as-presented. What it makes me think more of is something almost-always ignored in 2nd/3rd articles on a story - simply lift 2 or 3 paragraphs as they are from the earlier articles and use that as perfectly legit background. In that regard, getting the text checked-off would be quite useful. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Belgium

Hello Brian McNeil, In 2008 you signed on this list that you are interested in founding Wikimedia Belgium. After some silent years, we reactivated the process of founding a chapter in Belgium (and Luxembourg) in 2011, and are currently still working to form the chapter in 2012/2013. If you are still interested in setting up a chapter in Belgium, please sign up on wmbe:Founding/Interested_people. Be welcome! Greetings - Romaine (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Sorry, Romaine.
I left Belgium to come back to Scotland in 2009. Good luck getting a chapter off the ground, I hope that certain attitudes which, in 2008, made a chapter seem unlikely have changed. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pre-writing for colorado

Suggestion was not infoboxes but an article with pre-approved text. Drafting that at Australian Paralympic alpine development team set to head to IPC Nor-Am Cup, but I worry based on pi zero comments off wiki that this will fail on the newsworthiness aspect. Assistance and advice? --LauraHale (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • An article?
I see no reason not to make use of prepared stories here. You can omit the lede, and details which would be current at time of final submission, but other details - of a background/biographical nature - could-well be put together and that checked against the majority of review criteria.
Different subject-matter, but that's supposed to be a substantial part of prepped obits. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anonymous hacks Syria government emails

And they got a few interesting ones, but 2 in particular stand out. [4] the letters there can be downloaded into a PDF and 'read.' The problem is, they are in Arabic and I don't know anyone who can translate them. The second email that caught my eye is here: [5]. In it is discusses Syria's and Iran's attempt at arming Hamas (long story short). Anyways that second email contains headers...and I now nothing about headers or how to use them to verify or debunk and email or trace it or whatever you can do with headers. So if you can help or know anyone who can or have any ideas, please let me know ASAP. I started to write up something here: Leaked email alleges Iran, Syria arming Hamas with weapons made in Ukraine. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Let's pick it apart:
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: AtMail AtMail Open 1.02
Message-ID: <>
To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_5b365536ea823594258f8b654b60bf56"
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:14:14 +0200
Subject: Additional Information Requested by HE
X-Evolution-Source: pop:// is indeed the mail server for the domain. But, that could readily be forged.
The origin is 'odd', it's validity depends on how these emails were allegedly obtained. is (some irony there methinks.
Now, is the address legit?, that is. Let's try it...
$ telnet 25
Connected to
Escape character is '^]'.
250 ok
550 sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.7.17)
250 ok
354 go ahead
Subject: Your email has been stolen
Courtesy of the Tor project!
250 ok 1354051234 qp 18765
Connection closed by foreign host.
Pwnd! Can you work out what I just did? --Brian McNeil / talk 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was looking over the comments on the proposal of En-WN's closure and wow, there are people who really have a bone to pick with you huh? you seem okay to me mind you. Matticusmadness (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's like a porcupine that way. :P -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've given some of those people their reasons to hate me, but they're so close to their preferred projects and view of what Wikinews should be doing. That's, quite simply, `they don't know, but not how the project is today`.
The press isn't supposed to be a lapdog, but some of the ideas which are ascendant on Wikipedia would indeed see Wikinews hobbled.
Outside the "bubble" around Wikipedia's massive popularity, there's less of an opinion that the project is "a joke". It is an experiment in-progress, and will likely change over time.
Some of the furious arguments I've seen on Wikinews are our "failure to follow-up on a story", that's turned into attempts to get archived articles exhumed and altered, or to write-with-hindsight and try to pass it off as news.
AGF was another bugbear, and one people from Wikipedia should appreciate. Journalists have to ask questions; not take tea with Nero and his Stradivarius. That's, all-too-often, what people expect playing Devil's Advocate to be like. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newcomer OR

I'm hoping you could offer suggestions/advice/whatnot for this newcomer, either/both on their specific article or/and in general. User has been pleasant and cooperative (as of this writing), doing xyr best to address review comments. Claims to be a reporter with 24 years' experience, and claims to have taken 'mental notes' when attending the event. When logging in, turns out to have the interesting account name Lindisfarne.


User talk:Lindisfarne#Your mass marriage article
Talk:Generous gesture enables poor couples to tie the nuptial knot

--Pi zero (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Pretty please consider flagging it up, so it doesn't spam recent changes, thanks! --Gryllida 13:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, flagging it would do more than keep it off recent changes (which I actually don't mind; it's a sort of timekeeper, and when anyone's actually doing anything it's trivial in comparison). Flagging would also give the bot autoreview powers, which is why we're very wary of granting bot privs. --Pi zero (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a way to do it so the bot only appears under the Recent Changes when you click the option to "show/hide bots" in the Recent Changes options. At the moment the bot appears in the RC as a regular editor so I am not sure how to fix that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That gives it autoreviewer, but I've flagged it anyway.
It highlights a point I'll have to develop into my bot framework: If running as a bot, on a wiki with FlaggedRevs, any new revision must be 'unreviewed'.
That can, relatively easily, be a voted-upon per-job that a bot does. So, set up new job, test anywhere it might hit reviewed pages very thoroughly before throwing that switch in the code. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Site not working? --Pi zero (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice on reviewing OR?

Broadly, at what point(s) does it become problematic to publish an interview because of the nature of the questions asked? (I see deep thinking on this in my near future.)

Specifically, I'd appreciate your thoughts on a couple of different cases floating right now. [Clarification: I'm not only asking in relation to the broad question above; there are other issues involved.]

On Bddpaux's article I've not yet formed an opinion about the interview as a whole.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations". Shouldn't need to cite the source of the quote, and I think it should be a touchstone people are familiar with before conducting any interview.
In some cases, you may be putting questions to a subject-matter expert; those are highly unlikely to be confrontational interviews.
No interview should ever be in the style of Piers Moron. Beyond pointing people at disastrous abuses of the interview process, what anyone conducting an interview with anyone who trades on their reputation (politicians, pop stars, etc) has to remember is: their "job" is to avoid being delivered a press release and being manipulated into (as the quote says) publishing what the interviewee wants.
I would tend to avoid "Tell me who X are, and what they do" unless you've thoroughly researched and are ready to counter what will be blatant shilling with evidence and harder questions. -- (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was an inquiry on IRC about this website, . What's the legal standing of web sites like this with "wikinews" in their names? I remember just enough to feel there's something messy about it that I don't fully remember. --Pi zero (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Apparently there's also .) --Pi zero (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello there, I received the link to this page via twitter and just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I cannot claim I know that much about them, but as far as I know their roots are in a wiki that was used by students, mainly by students of the Freie Universität Berlin, a couple of years ago. The wiki was one of the many networks that were fighting for free education, against the installation of tuition fees in Germany, tuition fees installed as a result of the Bologna Process that started in 1999. That page has, according to my information, derived from that wiki. "030" is the German dialing code for Berlin (city of said university). While I respect trademarks and such - a) "news" relating to a b) "wiki" network of a students protest in c) Berlin - wiki as such, news as such and the area code of the city - that is according to what I know how the name was formed. Just in case somebody assumes that the name is used for commercial purposes or has anything to do with this page here - that seems not to be the case... it's not a company page of a commercial company - a foundation doing not that bad with collecting donations and then thinking about a legal fight against a page that derived from a students protest... not sure... would seem a bit weird. Following that logics, you could start a case agains Wikileaks, too - as misusing the very same trademark or a relevant part of it... --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"wikileaks" isn't a wmf trademark. "wikinews" is. And it clearly doesn't matter who is misusing it. If they aren't authorized to use it, they aren't authorized to use it, regardless of whether or not they're commercial. --Pi zero (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"wikinews030" is the name of them. not "wikinews" and I would say - they have a twitter account and email address on their "about" page - so, a person - it would need to be the person in charge of defending that very same trademark - if that person(s) in charge feels offended by a name that derived from a students wiki - they clearly have easy contact possibilities. --Zwozwölf1121-3 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Email geoff about this, I suppose? — μchip08 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm wondering if passing a mention on to the legal team is most-appropriate, or if Wikimedia Deutschland might be better-able to handle it.
And, to counter some of the above comments, it is not a matter of "feeling offended". It is a matter of how international law works with-regard to registered trade marks. If you do not defend your mark against dilution, or unauthorised use, you risk losing it.
I've seen disambiguating disclaimers which point to the mark holder, and highlight that the mark is registered to said holder, get around some potentially confusing cases. This might be a situation where that works. But, "Wikinewsies are not lawyers; where they are lawyers, they are not your lawyers ..."
Plus, those who saw the email exchange when I last drafted a complaint regarding misuse of the Wikinews mark - which was passed-on to a video uploader through YouTube - probably still snigger at how much those hapless students absolutely crapped themselves. -- (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephen of the WMF legal team is going to get in touch with them. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm a bit surprised what was coming up after my hint to Pi_zero. I just asked if the site is already known (it's a site half english, half german). I did not think wikimedia owns the brandname 'wikinews' since i was told that we can not claim the right to own the domain So i thought not about legal fights this time.
So there is a much bigger problem with What you can see is what i saw just now: it's a site offering news. And a bad one: Apparently it's not a wiki and it's not free stuff. And it is half Advertising wrapped in 'newsarticles'. In the past was a redir to As i can see the portal started ~50 days ago.
And with the problem of confusion is much bigger then with "wikinews030". So you may deal with prior-ranking --Itu (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe you will find "wikinews" is a legally registered trademark in Germany. - Amgine | t 22:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You may find the specific Wikimedia Foundation policy regarding use of WMF marks in domain names here on the Foundation's wiki. - Amgine | t 23:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And, I've emailed Stephen LaPorte to include the site as part of his invasion of Germany. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Advice on reviewing OR?

Broadly, at what point(s) does it become problematic to publish an interview because of the nature of the questions asked? (I see deep thinking on this in my near future.)

Specifically, I'd appreciate your thoughts on a couple of different cases floating right now. [Clarification: I'm not only asking in relation to the broad question above; there are other issues involved.]

On Bddpaux's article I've not yet formed an opinion about the interview as a whole.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations". Shouldn't need to cite the source of the quote, and I think it should be a touchstone people are familiar with before conducting any interview.
In some cases, you may be putting questions to a subject-matter expert; those are highly unlikely to be confrontational interviews.
No interview should ever be in the style of Piers Moron. Beyond pointing people at disastrous abuses of the interview process, what anyone conducting an interview with anyone who trades on their reputation (politicians, pop stars, etc) has to remember is: their "job" is to avoid being delivered a press release and being manipulated into (as the quote says) publishing what the interviewee wants.
I would tend to avoid "Tell me who X are, and what they do" unless you've thoroughly researched and are ready to counter what will be blatant shilling with evidence and harder questions. -- (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

California judge disqualified from predatory lending case involving former clients

Thanks for your review. I made some changes attempting to respond to your comments, but I don't know if I made it better or worse. I did that yesterday shortly after your review.

What should I do if anything to try to get another review of this article before it is no longer news? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There was an inquiry on IRC about this website, . What's the legal standing of web sites like this with "wikinews" in their names? I remember just enough to feel there's something messy about it that I don't fully remember. --Pi zero (talk) 02:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Apparently there's also .) --Pi zero (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hello there, I received the link to this page via twitter and just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. I cannot claim I know that much about them, but as far as I know their roots are in a wiki that was used by students, mainly by students of the Freie Universität Berlin, a couple of years ago. The wiki was one of the many networks that were fighting for free education, against the installation of tuition fees in Germany, tuition fees installed as a result of the Bologna Process that started in 1999. That page has, according to my information, derived from that wiki. "030" is the German dialing code for Berlin (city of said university). While I respect trademarks and such - a) "news" relating to a b) "wiki" network of a students protest in c) Berlin - wiki as such, news as such and the area code of the city - that is according to what I know how the name was formed. Just in case somebody assumes that the name is used for commercial purpose