User talk:Iuio

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


Iuio, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --SVTCobra 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for contributing this article, but please be careful with copyright violations. The second half of the article was a blatant copy-paste job from The Province article. --SVTCobra 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. In my (alas, not-ready) review, I tried to look past the first problem or two I found, to write in-depth review comments. Your previous contributions, I gather from your user page, were back before our current review system (see the first pillar at WN:PILLARS). There's a bit of a learning curve, which we try to help folks up, but we like to think though it can be steep at first, it's also fairly short and things get lots easier. --Pi zero (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Well, I admit that it's been many years since I wrote anything for Wikinews, so I'm not as familiar with the new procedures. I have tweaked the article and resubmitted it for review, along with correcting the 800,000 catholic pilgrims statement, along with another source to substantiate the claim. Hope this works out. Thanks (Iuio (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Published. Congrats! See review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, many thanks for your assistance, and all those edits you made to the article. Sorry for the inconvenience it must have cost you. I hope to learn from this and do better the next time I write another article. (Iuio (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

You're already aware it's been published, obviously. Some stuff for you to work on; see history of edits during review. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I would like to point out that while I was initially skeptical of the existence of the Department of Environment and Conservation, it apparently does exist, and this is their webpage. [1] (Iuio (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Though I still just don't figure where that item fit into the larger picture. --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I also wasn't too sure about it, either. Why did you change the date of The Telegraph source from May 5 to May 6? To my knowledge, the source was dated to May 5, and I saw no mention of a May 6 date, be it published or revised. This article was somewhat challenging, since Fenwick had a lot of differing quotes across the various sources, evidently, he gave multiple unique interviews to all of them. Still, I hope I did a decent enough job at synthesizing most of his quotes into a single artlce. (Iuio (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Oh yes, an essentially solid article. :-)
When we know something was an exclusive to an org, we give 'em credit. I tried to add that in, here, when it was made entirely clear that was the case. Though I agree he probably talked to each of them individually, as best I could tell many of them didn't actually say so explicitly.
The article says it was updated on the 6th. --Pi zero (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, I don't see the 6th on it either. Perhaps I got the articles mixed up? I know I saw an update on the 6th to one of them... <goes looking> --Pi zero (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. It was the Glob and Mail. Will fix. --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, well, I haven't seen any articles that credit sources individually like you've done here, so this is all new to me. I was concerned that this article might not, given its unusual and quirky subject matter, and the fact that it comes from a rural town, be newsworthy, or of interest in a global sense. But yes, I scoured that article, and cannot find any mention to the 6th, so I'm glad you sorted that out. I think the bit about the supposed phone call from the Department of Environment and Conservation may have been to show additional opposition to the sale, apart from eBay and Environment Canada, but it seems like a one-off thing. Speaking of eBay, I have noticed several old articles such as Woman sells name on eBay, eBay UK bans sale of Live 8 tickets, Driftwood crucifix listed on eBay for $25,000, Big shoes to fill at eBay, and IRS goes after eBay sellers that have to do with eBay but are not in the "eBay" category on Wikinews. I assume that they were written prior to the creation of the eBay category. Should they be put in the eBay category then? (Iuio (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]
We don't usually credit which news source a fact came from unless they got an exclusive — but we try very hard to give other news orgs credit for their exclusives, just as we would want then to give us credit if they reported on our exclusive.
Re the category that isn't fully populated, the date that probably matters most is that the category was created before the creation of the {{w}} template. {{w}} serves more than one agenda; it's hugely aided us in categorizing articles — but only articles that use it. Most of the articles in the archives don't use it (yet, though we're slowly coverting them), which makes it harder to spot when those articles mention something that now has a local redirect. --Pi zero (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for the help on the eBay category. For the article, I accessed eBay's policy page on May 7, not May 8, to check the basis of the policy violation that eBay was citing when it took down the listing. Not sure what Wikinews policy is regarding undated sources. So we just mention what the date of access is for a source without a date? (Iuio (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Source citations must have a date. If a source doesn't have a date attached to it, use the date of access (and specify on the citation that it's the date of access, as I did). Naturally, specify your date of access — but I figure, when I'm reviewing, the sources become the record of what the article was checked against, so I update the date-of-access to reflect the version that I'm using during review (if different from the reporter's date-of-access). --Pi zero (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi there, I responded back! Diego Grez Cañete (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Published the article. I'm unsure (as remarked in my review comments) whether I was right to push forward with the review, or should have not-ready'd. You need to work on not copying passages from sources. I realize "use your own words" is harder than it sounds, but it should be possible to acquire the skill with practice. Hopefully, by seeing what I felt needed addressing during review, you can get a sense of what you need to avoid. (When I produced is not ideal; my edits were a stopgap, to deal with the situation as I found it, while minimizing my intervention as a reviewer.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


So you'll have your material for a possible future article, I'm going to past the van Gogh bits at: User:Iuio/van Gogh article. OK? --Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one out of three[edit]

I'm sad that I only managed to review one of the three articles you wrote, though I'm glad I got one of them out. This is a very tense time here, as we work to get out a massive article ahead of the US presidential election on November 8. --Pi zero (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If you want to link something to wikipedia, please use the {{w}} template.
acagastya 11:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. This is a problematic case; an interestingly problematic case, actually. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 01:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]