User talk:DannyS712

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

A nice cup of coffee for you while you get started

Getting started as a contributor
How to write an article
  1. Pick something current?
  2. Use two independent sources?
  3. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start.
  4. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
  5. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?

  • Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template.
    [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

 Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
  Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.

Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.

The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.

Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies
Places to go, people to meet

Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.

There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!

Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!

It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)



Hi Danny. I will begin the Trump taxes review shortly. If you are still pursuing reviewer rights and you have interest and/or time, perhaps you would like to do a mock review of one of the other two articles up for review. And I don't just mean doing copy-editing and adding categories, but writing your assessment on the talk page: Did you find the article ready to publish or not? If no, state why. If yes, state any changes you made which you felt the author should have gotten right before submitting. You've seen the type of commentary Pi leaves on his reviews; that's what I mean.
I think Wikinews would be well served by another active reviewer. It can quickly become a bottleneck because it often takes longer to review an article than it does to write it. Every fact needs to be confirmed in the listed sources. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I wasn't comfortable leaving this on the talk page, so writing here; I took a look at Swedish academy announces 2019 Nobel Prize winners in physics.
  • While the sources use "Universe" (capital), generally its used as lower case, so I switched it, but it wouldn't be wrong to use uppercase here
  • Both sources use "James", not "Jim" - "Jim" can't be found anywhere in either article. I'm sure there are sources that use "Jim", but none that were cited, so I switched it to be using "James". The enwiki article, however, is at w:Jim Peebles, so I had to pipe it.
  • Given how long its been since it was submitted, I updated the date and phrasing to reflect that its Thursday (when it would most likely be published; Friday would be getting close to stale)
  • Total edits made:
  • Verdict: If I were a reviewer, I would publish the article, specifically Special:Permalink/4520756
    1. Copyright - pass
      • Earwigs flagged phrases "the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics" and "scientists have been able to", both fairly common
      • The quotation was also flagged, but it is properly attributed
    2. Newsworthiness - pass
      • Specific -
      • Relevant -
      • Fresh - , but not for long
    3. Verifiability - pass
    4. NPOV - pass
    5. Style - pass
      • I switched "Universe" to "universe", but, as noted above, "U" would probably be acceptable
      • Headline - personally, would prefer "Swedish academy announces winners of 2019 Nobel Prize in physics" or "2019 winners of Nobel", but "Swedish academy announces 2019 Nobel Prize winners in physics" meets the requirements
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: was published by Pi zero - see edits made: --DannyS712 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like most of the changes made by Pi come down to personal preferences. Not sure why Pi deemed that one fact about the number of exoplanets needed to be attributed while the others were fine. So, I'd say you did a fine job. BTW, what is this 'Earwigs' tool you speak of? Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712, SVTCobra: Though I aspire to apply maximal expertise to each decision, that's not at all the same thing as "personal preference". To test the question, I've gone through and scrutinized each of the edits I made.
  • diff — The concern here is straightforward, though the application was an interesting challenge as I remarked in the edit summary. Use of "America" to mean "US" is inherently non-neutral. In my experience, there's a very strong correlation between people who complain bitterly that this usage is not biased, and people who live in the US.
  • diff — This addressed two concerns at once. One concern was that there was a phrase here verbatim from source. That phrase was a bit over the length threshold (nominally four consecutive words, by the rule of thumb); there is a certain art to judging this, to do with when a sequence of words becomes such a cliche (stock phrase) that its selection by the writer can be treated as more-or-less a single choice and thus, for purposes of word count toward the rule of thumb, more-or-less a single "word"; but when in doubt, breaking up such constructs is preferable. The other concern was with the use of the word "discovery". In the interest of neutrality, when science reporting discusses interpretation of empirical data, avoid terms such as "reveal", "show", "discover" that carry a suggestion that truth is being uncovered; we seek to not endorse such interpretations; this shouldn't be an obstacle to reporting, with attribution, that the scientists gave this interpretation — and with avoiding words like "reveal", "show", etc.
  • diff — Subtle little violations of WN:Future can be easily overlooked, and catching them is all the more valuable for that.
  • diff — Here again, two concerns. The first concern is that, to be precise, these exoplanets were already there so some precision is called for. The second concern is the attribution; and SVTCobra questioned, above, why this fact should want attribution while the other did not. It's because numbers are much easier for people to have different takes on and thus harder to pin down as generally-agreed-upon-common-knowledge than are simple discrete points like 51-Pegasus-b-was-the-first-exoplanet-discovered (yes, that's more like an observation than an interpretation, so "discover" is fine).
  • diff — Another distance-from-source case; as I recall, a rather long verbatim passage whose last word was the "while" that I eliminated there; a tiny decrement to very-close-similarity-of-phrases.
Regarding the aforementioned tool, iirc I took a look at it once-upon-a-time and concluded it was unsuitable for use in review because (I'm merely describing what I remember concluding at the time) unlike dupdet, which lists specific details of particular passages the human operator can then reason about, that other tool generated a lump conclusion which the operator was supposed to simply accept. (It also seemed complacent about specific concerns that I would find very concerning.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Did you mean to say "slightly ambiguous" instead of "inherently non-neutral" in regards to the US/America thing? --SVTCobra 20:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: No. Granted, it is sightly ambiguous. --Pi zero (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: OK, then we need to talk about it elsewhere in the future as this is not the proper forum. --SVTCobra 20:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I concur that this would not be an appropriate place for a discussion on the matter. Note, fwiw, that the concerns mentioned re both "America" and "discovery" are included in WN:Neutrality (sections #Avoiding phrase bias, #Scientific results). --Pi zero (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


for the help. Baozon90 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem --DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

US announces restrictions on flying to Cuba[edit]

Hi. I really hesitated over the neutrality aspect of this article, actually doing the whole source-check while mulling it over (everything checked out, btw). The first thing I noticed that concerned me was the lack of variety in the sources; but of course it's not all that complicated a story. And I wondered about the "why" of the thing. (Kudos, btw, for reporting it as a claim of motivation; nicely played. :-) Poking around to see what more far-flung sources have to say on it, I noticed on one hand that nobody really has much to say about it yet, and on the other hand, that what almost everyone does mention is a bit of historical background (that's how I noticed that CBS News was exceptional by having no match for a string search on "Obama"). Anyway, it doesn't look to me as if much is needed, but after giving it all time to sink in, I honestly felt something is needed. --Pi zero (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to add some history --DannyS712 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Re: Richard Spencer[edit]

Hi DannyS712

I am intermittently online this quarter of the year but just saw the very detailed and informative story about Richard Spencer. In the story the headline is in passive tense, can this be corrected without making it too long?

Thank you greatly for your continued effort and commitment. It is amazing. I do not cope with following local news beyond the local suburb these days and appreciate your attention to the detail.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I'm in the middle of something on enwiki right now, but have no objections if you want to rename the article. If not, I'll try to take a look soon --DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; I am afraid that I lack the background knowledge to do a rename sanely. Look forward to your assistance. Gryllida (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't think of a good, active, title. I'll leave it for now. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would perhaps suggest to merge the first two paragraphs[edit]

--Gryllida (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is US House of Representatives impeaches President Trump, I was trying to follow Wikinews:Style guide#The first paragraph, but no objections if you want to merge them. My priority is just trying to get this published asap, as it is breaking news --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking about answering the 5Ws. It answers the Why. I am not sure what is the best way to go from here. Gryllida (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: I've added a why to the first paragraph --DannyS712 (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

mainspace disambigs[edit]

This is a grey area. The style guide, which says to use a mainspace redirect instead of linking directly to a category, is about writing an article. I've been linking directly to categories in the disambig pages. Whether that's what we should do... is less clear to me, atm. Maybe I had in mind some reasoning on why to link to the categories directly in that case; if I did have some reasoning in mind, it has not yet come back to me. Do you have any thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Not an big-scale ideas, but we should be consistent about where we link to redirects vs directly to the categories. If articles use redirects, thats fine. What should disambiguation pages use? What should other namespaces use? (Content, not talk) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
In most situations, we go through the mainspace redirects. Any exception ought to be for a specific reason.
  • The preload page for disambig pages illustrates linking directly to category pages. {{mainspace disambig/template preload}}.
  • The purpose of a mainspace redirect is to provide a link based on a "keyword" independent of the target namespace; ultimately, this is extended through {{w}} to wikilink syntax independent even of target project.
  • The purpose of a wikilink in a disambiguation page is, ordinarily, to link explicitly to a category. There is no intention to be independent of target namespace.
So I guess I'm leaning again toward linking directly to categories in this situation; the confusing think here was that the second option on the disambig page used {{w}} because there was no local target.

Does my reasoning sound plausible to you? If we're going to do things that way, we should look for ways to further document the practice, so that hopefully folks in future can more readily see that it's meant to be done that way. --Pi zero (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

So use direct links to categories, or {{w}}? I suggest making a discussion somewhere so this can be agreed on, and then I can go through (manually or via bot) and apply the new scheme --DannyS712 (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Sigh. It's already done in a consistent way, set out when the disambig-page arrangement was first set up and followed ever since (till now). Blood Red Sandman went along with it, as I recall. Seems like escalating the discussion is only needful if we're looking to change the arrangement, and honestly, as I think about it I have no desire to change it. I admit, on reflection I can see I was hoping you'd agree it was a plausible arrangement, and we could simply look for ways to improve its documentation, and continue it. --Pi zero (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems that there are a lot of things that are the standard/general way of doing things here, but that aren't documented anywhere... --DannyS712 (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. Historically, Wikinews has been more of a living tradition, passed on directly from user to user rather than through documentation pages. A Wikinewsie from an earlier era than I remarked, some time back, that small news orgs usually aren't well documented, as folks are too busy writing news to write about how they write news; it's the really big orgs that have massive documentation (like AP, or BBC). The shortage of Wikinews documentation makes reviewer-reporter interaction, especially review comments and also notably edit-summaries during review, extremely important, as a major vector for passing on know-how. Part of what I've done here has been to deliberately try to soak up all the lore I could from past generations of Wikinewies so I could continue passing it on to later generations (a temporary arrangement; I mean to make myself unnecessary in the long run). I have tried to extend our documentation; notably, WN:PILLARS is mostly a compilation of sentences each of which I'd written hundreds of times in review comments till I could recite them in my sleep. I also hope to embed further know-how into the semi-automated tools I hope to develop (yet another thing making that development more daunting). --Pi zero (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Automated tools? Coding? Javascript? Dibs :) - let me know if I can help. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Heh. I'll try to remember to provide you a bit of background on what I've been doing (not just atm; time for me to turn in, and tomorrow morning I anticipate reviewing). --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 14:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[edit]

  • Good news (Category(ies): Developing; added by Alao korede at 2019-12-31 14:32:22, epoch 1577802742) --Trigonidiida (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 15:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Two technical questions[edit]

  • How have you been going about finding those old unprotected articles? (Because I can think of a way, but am curious whether there's another that I'm overlooking.)
  • How have you been going about looking for external archives of broken sources? (Because it seems I've sometimes succeeded in that where you'd reported failure.)

--Pi zero (talk) 05:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sometimes really bored - some experimenting with the api / database queries / looking through logs
I've been putting the url in the search

--DannyS712 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC) search? Hm. Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever tried that. When I've got a broken source url, I just manually prepend*/
producing things like*/
which seems to work if anything will. --Pi zero (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll try that next time --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, what was the way you could think of for finding them? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, for a moment I thought I saw a way to do it with a DPL; but on second thought I decided I'd been wrong about that. --Pi zero (talk) 05:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 13:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

  • Pankaj Jaiswal (Category(ies): Developing; added by Harishpednekar at 2020-01-02 13:02:46, epoch 1577970166) --Trigonidiida (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 21:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 03:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 11:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

  • K8myar (Category(ies): Review; added by Saikopathsh at 2020-01-03 10:34:14, epoch 1578047654) --Trigonidiida (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 14:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 04:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

  • Jongly (Category(ies): Developing; added by Myjongly2 at 2020-01-04 09:19:21, epoch 1578129561) --Trigonidiida (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 10:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 21:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 08:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 13:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 16:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 22:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 05:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 06:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 10:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)