Don't forget to sight edits like this! That's the second time in a row. It's no longer done automatically when a reviewer edits and already-sighted article; in fact, it hasn't been for some time. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, am I allowed to do that? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 11:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I didn't realise. So I just hit the 'Accept revision' button to sight the edit? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's how it's done, yes.
Be very careful, when sighting your own edit, that somebody else didn't make another edit that you would also be sighting (the other edit would be visible in the diff, and it would say something about some number of intermediate edits not shown). Though it might sound wildly unlikely, I've found it can happen maybe once in a blue moon (andcome around about once every fifteen months :-).
Adding your Wikinewsie category is thoroughly uncontroversial, and doing it with HotCat makes it well nigh inconceivable to accidentally do something different than intended; so, no problem whatsoever with self-sighting in that case. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- That's how it's done, yes.
- Oh. Well, this is awkward. Tell you what: why don't we incorporate the content of your article into mine, since they both significantly overlap? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- I've modified my article to incorporate some of your info and sources, although you can tamper with it as you wish. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I was uncomfortable, as I was reviewing it, that there was only one source for the focal event. We generally ask for two mutually independent sources corroborating the focus, which can serve many different functions but in this case seems more relevant to verification. On a few occasions I recall taking two sources corroborating a focus where one source comes before the focus and shows it was anticipated, and the second confirms that it actually happened; but here afaics the earlier source doesn't anticipate the later event. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- To be fair, you're absolutely right. There was only one source for the article's focal point. There are two there now; additionally, I have sourced all the information included in the article. I hope this helps. --Rayboy8 (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Btw, I can't access articles in the New York Times; we suspect they may paywall their articles for anyone in North America. So in review it I'd expect to drop that source and cut anything I didn't find elsewhere. --Pi zero (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's annoying. Shall I just remove information from The New York Times source? --Rayboy8 (talk) (contributions) 22:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- It is done. --Rayboy8 (talk) (contributions) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)