User talk:Nascar1996/Archive 1

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

Please do not edit the contents of this page. It is for historical reference only. (June 2010-October 2010)


Hi Nascar, just a thought, I think you should write some more articles (perhaps ten?) before applying. You must also know WN:SG. Happy editing! Diego Grez return fire 16:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it necessarily has to be that much. From what I've seen, most people will be looking for is quality of articles, not quantity, when evaluating a request for Reviewer status. So about five well-written articles that follow our style guide and didn't have any big errors before publishing (which yours are) should be valued more than ten articles that needed a lot of fixing. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --Nascar1996 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me butting in. The key questions are to have a good grasp of the fine points of English and to know WN:SG like the back of your hand. Article-writing is merely the way we'd look for evidence of this. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind anyone butting in. I have read the style quide and I really understand the process. --Nascar1996 17:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People on the internet have opinions[edit]

Regarding this edit, there is an old saying from USENET: "please don't feed the trolls" :) --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard that saying before, but okay and thanks for the hands up! --Nascar1996 15:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
w:WP:DFTT... C'mon, you should know this. fetch·comms 23:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I didn't. Please note, I am younger than 18. --Nascar1996 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from a grammatical change, you have not done anything to the quote. Only bits of it are contained in the source; parts of it simply are not verified. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't have a clue what you are talking about. --Nascar1996 23:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Myself[edit]

Okay. I have changed my vote to support, seeing that you have worked more. However, I don't want to see a gun pointing to my head next time ;) Saludos, Diego Grez return fire 03:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please, reviewer is not a big thing. If it doesn't succeeds this time, next time you nominate yourself for sure you will do. What's the hurry? :) Diego Grez return fire 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to become a sysop before I graduate. After that I may retire, but hopefully on a good note. Nascar1996 03:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? fetch·comms 03:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? I don't get it, could you explain that? Diego Grez return fire 03:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In about four years I will graduate in real life. Afterward, I may go to college or work which means I would no longer be able to edit, or I may. Right now sometimes I want to retire now because of troubles in Wikipedia, but I don't want to I love editing here. --Nascar1996 03:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So...? If you don't get the reviewer flag this time around, you'll get it next month. No big deal. fetch·comms 03:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, are you still oppose, nuetral or support Fetchcomms? --Nascar1996 03:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{SUBJECTSPACE}} seems rather pointless. Any particular reason you created it? Bawolff 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will evenually create my status at the top of my wikipedia page. It is alot of work. w:User:Nascar1996

--Nascar1996 05:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The SUBJECTSPACE template (now deleted) is unnessary to do that (its a magic word, it already exists). Bawolff 05:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There's no point. {{SUBJECTSPACE}} is a magic word. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank why cant I get it to work?--Nascar1996 05:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It works, but not correctly. It is supposed to be beside "User:Nascar1996". --Nascar1996 05:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer RFP[edit]

I changed my vote to support. If it fails, don't worry about applying another time: reviewer RFPs are not supposed to be (and rarely are) a focus for wikidrama. Voters merely make a quick and provisional judgement about your ability to review at a moment in time. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Diego's page you wrote: "Now I need to ask everyone else because I am serious about this." Please don't do that: it is not a political campaign, and you might tick some people off. If you see a trend towards support, my suggestion is to just apply again in a month. You are young, and we will be glad to read more of your articles in the meantime. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Myself[edit]

About your comment on my talk page, I appreciate your incredible enthusiasm about Wikinews. I noticed that a few have changed their votes to support. I will look through your recent articles and contributions and decide for myself sometime today. Tyrol5 (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for contributing your first two reviews. You got caught out on the first one when the author 'fessed up to missing out a source: I guess it is just a reminder that every single fact needs checking (that is the lengthiest part of reviews, I find, and why I don't do very many.)

Welcome to the happy band of reviewers.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Nascar1996 21:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on reviewer status[edit]


There's a standard message for new reviewers, which I don't see here; it has a list of pages to read. If you'd care to take a look, it's at {{Reviewer message}}.

I have a peer-reviewing checklist I put together a while back, hoping to produce something that would be useful and eventually become a guideline. It's never managed to pass muster for any official status, but I at least have found it handy on the (rare) occasions when I do peer review: Wikinews:Tips on reviewing articles#Checklist.

There's also a user box for reviewers, {{User Wikinews reviewer}}, which I created because I was hoping it would catch on and help everyone remind themselves to think of reviewer as a big responsibility. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikinews is not Wikipedia (if you thought "reviewer" worked the same way as Wikipedia). Try to read and check every single sentence of the articles! Not just press the pass button, okay? ;) It is a big responsibility. Thanks. Diego Grez return fire 22:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a way it is, because you review pending changes, and thanks for the message Pi zero. Also I heard the Diego Grez will be wathcing over me. :) --Nascar1996 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes yes. Care to review this comment on an article you have reviewed? Thanks. Diego Grez return fire 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
------------------------------------------- ~ Nascar1996 03:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful in your reviewing. I see copyediting things that have slid past your reviews, quotes that have not been verified in your reviews, and POV that was in an article you published. All this in the first two days of having the review status. Please make sure you are reading the articles carefully and checking the sources that are on there. Thank you, Either way (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stopping all together. I'm not really good at it. I could never be an English teacher. ;)--Nascar1996 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think you use another tool- it is Easy Peer Review. ;) Cheers, --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum is three paragraphs. We've had much shorter than the above article, if you look at others. fetch·comms 16:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded it anyway, as I wasn't done with it before but someone had already tried to put it up for review. fetch·comms 16:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, you don't need to review spam, just tag it with {{delete}}. —Mikemoral♪♫ 15:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the advice! Nascar1996 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I understand how you feel about it not being reviewed. I have had it happen to articles I wrote before too. My work schedule sucks and if i was able to have, I would have reviewed it. I hope you reconsider your departure. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the only reason, and I may look here on and off. It has been mostly some of the rued editors. On Wikipedia, everyone is nice, exept every once in a while I had a dispute, but it was quickly solved. I may come back, but don't look at it for this year. There are only 4 more races. The earliest I will become reactive would be February 2011. Nascar1996 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I know that you've been having issues with your articles not being reviewed, but I urge you to reconsider your decision to retire here. You say that your work is not appreciated—absolutely it is not. I have a great deal of respect for your articles, and I think you are an excellent journalist. We've all had our problems with articles going stale, and trust me, it infuriates me too. No, I haven't been here long, but there are times when I seriously consider whether its worth spending time writing articles here. Ultimately, though, we're a small community of journalists who all have the interests of the project at heart. If you do decide to leave, then I will miss your F1 NASCAR articles, and I'm sure the people who read them will too. Good luck for the future, and I'm always willing to collaborate on Wikipedia or at Wikinews. Wackywacedictaphone 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made a couple mistakes in the above comment, such as F1 its NASCAR, but I know what you ment. I have better things to do than to write an article that will be deleted. Also if you want you can talk to me more at Wikipedia. I am more active there (where my work is appreciated by most of the editors) than here. Don't get me wrong, I like to edit Wikinews, but some on here are not polite, or anything. You might know some examples, but really I leaving for the same reason Tempo did. Once this conservation settles, the next time I may be active again is February 2011, in time for the w:2011 Daytona 500. Thanks. Nascar1996 20:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK then. I'll see you round there sometime, I'm more active over there most of the time. Wackywacedictaphone 20:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to delete your article; instead, I moved it to your userspace. Cheers, Diego Grez return fire 01:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]