User talk:Rayboy8/Archive 2011

Archive 2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018

Please do not edit the contents of this page. They are provided for historical reference only.

---

At least 443 dead after flooding in Brazil

Upping the death toll was a substantive edit, so should have been left for someone else to sight. --Pi zero (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't realise that somebody else was supposed to sight this edit. I apologise for the mistake. I am not entirely sure as to how this sighting rule works. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 07:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see what "sage" advice I can offer.

• The motive for the policy was that if, after publication, any reviewer can unilaterally make just any changes, that kind of undermines the point of having required independent peer review for publication in the first place. So changes made after publication should be subject to independent peer review as well.
• Since that's too much rigamarole for fixing typos and such, the official word is that you can self-sight any change that would be allowed on an archived article under the archive policy. But only admins have hands-on experience with the archive policy.
• A practical rule of thumb for when not to self-sight might be that, if the article were not yet published, and somebody else had peer reviewed it and was all ready to publish, and then you made this edit, the reviewer might then have to do some meaningful checking before proceeding to publish.
• Another good rule of thumb: when in doubt, leave it for someone else to sight.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I'll bear that in mind for the future. Thanks. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tuesday

Was five days ago. Stop putting it on the lead. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oh. I was looking at the severity of the story and not the day on which the incident occurred. I apologise for this mistake. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 01:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  You should always consider a combination of both when updating the leads, as well as factoring in OR and geographical balance. Sadly, systematic bias still largely negates the last of these. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• That last point is a real bugbear; the civil unrest in Egypt was reported from a very Angocentric POV – as are many, many stories. I pick that as an example due to AlJazeera and Russia Today looking at the story in a quite different way. RT managed to link it with some of the leaked cables on Wikileaks that strongly suggest the US has, for quite some time, been talking with the opposition about their ability to govern the country.

Like many of our younger/newer contributors it would be wise to step outside your comfort zone in terms of reading material. And, look far more closely at who has editorial control over specific publications. By-and-large, "Good journalism is not good business". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 04:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sighting your own edits

Hi Rayboy. In Wikinews, auto-sighting has been disabled long ago, and per conventions, you should not be sighting major content edits (such as this one). Fixing typos, moving images, are allowed to be self-sighted, but adding images (considered as content), quote-boxes, or further content, is not really something you should be sighting by yourself. Leave it to someone else. Thanks. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I apologise for this mistake. I will try to prevent it from happening again in the future. Thanks for the reminder. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Movie interview

Hi. II'm told you're the guy to goto for entertainment reports around here. Can you do a write up on my documentary. You can download it here if you would like a copy to report on. I'm pretty much available for comment any time - just email me. --RockerballAustralia c 23:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being confusing.

I have made a movie. I would like to have some written about it or be interviewed about it.

A copy is abailable here --RockerballAustralia c 00:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

this might be of some use.--RockerballAustralia c 00:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Click the link in you're web browser, the browser should prompt you to save or open the file, click open and it should start downloading in FinalTorrent or which ever program you've got --RockerballAustralia c 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not to sure what the problem would be. try this --RockerballAustralia c 01:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought: Does it seem there is some element of self-promotion (for some value of self) about doing a news report about a Wikinewsie's movie?

I suggest asking at the water cooler, to get input from a broader segment of the community about how best to approach it. --Pi zero (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now mentioned on the Water cooler and will now wait to see what the Wikinews community think.

Audio Wikinews

Thank you for your contribution! The more we have on-board, the merrier. -- kamnet (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving published articles

Whereas once we could do that freely, nowadays we end up with duplicates on our Twitter feed and whatnot. Therefore, if we can avoid renaming published articles, we should. It would be nice to one day be able to avoid that, but... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Eek. Apologies for that mistake. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 18:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't apologise; you didn't know and I think I got it quickly enough that there weren't any problems this time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

'Worst song of all time' becomes YouTube sensation

Really? That song is so shallow, a baby would facepalm. Do we need to spend time covering that sort of fluff? —fetch·comms 22:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Time-sensitive language on the main page

Please don't put Friday's stories on the main page on Sunday with words like "today" in the blurb, for obvious reasons. Please read the instructions at WN:ML and {{lead article doc}} more carefully, if you would be so kind. Regards, Bencherlite (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

South of the border?

If you are in England or Wales, by contributing to British MP identifies injunction footballer in Parliament, you are in contempt of court. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, the press haz a right to report this in England now as the right to report Parliamentary goings-on is sacred... supposedly. Two words of warning: Some members of the judiciary have made strong implied threats on this, and English civil courts have been known to claim jurisdiction, effectively, over the entire Internet on the grounds that people in England can access the information. It is conceivable that an attempt would be made to have at some members of the press, though I would expect such to be fiercely contested. Such would be a test case against a few big publications; I cannot really see the AG ever going after you or I. Too little chance of success, not in the public interest, etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Water main bursts in west Edinburgh; traffic, utilities disrupted

I would like you to review this – in terms of what was actually published – and, what you originally submitted.

There is, you must concede, a stark difference.

By-and-large, you submit good copy; however, something which I was able to go to the scene of, and verify with my own two eyes, makes me wonder as to where you think Wikinews' target audience is.

I have started a discussion on the talk page of the article, your input would be most welcome. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Endeavour enters history books after 19 years following penultimate landing of program

Nice job merging the two articles! I went ahead and redirected my page to yours to resolve the issue and submitted the merged article for review. Thank you for your work. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

ICANN releases new top-level domain suffixes 2011

I do not think that this article should be marked {{stale}}. Considering that the event that the article covers, which is the approval of the new TLDs, only occurred three days ago before the reporting, on June 20, 2011, and the entire event occurred within a week, I think it would pass the Wikinews threshold for being newsworthy. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The article would have to be published within 2–3 days of the event, or (mildly unusual, but certainly possible) 2–3 days after new information has come to light. The information all seems to have come to light on the date of the event, and by the time the article here was marked stale it was four days after the event. --Pi zero (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sudan

The 1956 date comes from After Years of Struggle, South Sudan Becomes a New Nation but I figured it was probably in one of your sources. Also South Sudan, world's newest nation, is instantly one of the most troubled has a lot about Sudan's problems, but I figured you may not want to get into that now on this day of celebration! Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

• It's fine by me. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Glasgow HGV accident

I recall this article of yours (mainly because of the unintelligible title). You may be interested in the strange verdict returned by a jury this week. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• £500 and five penalty points? That's a bit too light for an offence of this nature. He probably should have been banned from driving for twelve months, at least. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 20:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah. The problem is, the jury rejected that he'd caused death, but accepted he was careless... Which is plain odd. There was another I saw recently, where a near-blind guy knocked down a pensioner. She died. The jury did something similar, effectively ruling he hadn't killed her. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Ach. It's annoying when the courts can't 'prove' that anything actually happened. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 20:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Yep. It's a special Scottish verdict - it at least allows the jury to avoid a straight-out not guilty. Nowehere else in the world has that. Small consolation, of course, but still... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
        • Makes you proud to be Scottish! --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
          • Ha! I know a girl who claims she's Scottish because "Northumberland counts". But I digress: Just thought you'd be interested in how the story ended when I chanced upon the article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, thank you for sharing that with me, Blood Red Sandman. I appreciate it. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 15:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Texas drought

This is a classic Wikinews situation.....calling an article like this stale. Now, I will confess that I did have a typo on the date of one article (the Reuters article was really published on August 12th.....my error.....please look again). My phone interviews were both conducted on August 12th................so, that's 3 sources, a long way from "stale". Now, admittedly, I did stretch just a bit with the article from the 8th.....I'll concede that. But the drought in Texas (a profoundly NEWSWORTHY item)....was the same on August 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th....and remains the same today. I just wish that reviewers would develop a "whole picture" philosophy about things........I fear that your decision was just a classic Wikinews rubber-stamp action....so predictable and so de-motivating.Bddpaux (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I do apologise if I appear to have made any misjudgement in the reviewing of your article. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead stories

Just a note — I nearly got tripped up by this myself — the stories on the main page aren't in order by date. The one you put in lead four is actually quite old, despite its position on the list; the ordering got messed up by some vandalism a few days ago. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nepal plane crash kills 19

Do take a look at the edit history of what I did in review; that way I can pretend the detailed breakdown with edit summaries wasn't just to help me judge at the end whether I was too involved to publish :-). --Pi zero (talk) 23:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yahya Jammeh wins Gambia presidental election

Hi. There's a problem, and after some soul-searching I admitted I didn't feel comfortable with my independent status if I tried to address it myself. See the article talk. --Pi zero (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

'Have them all shot': BBC receives more than 21,000 complaints over Jeremy Clarkson comments on public sector strikers

review comments, edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Remaining US troops exit Iraq

I really had trouble deciding what to do with this; the bias in it is smooth, apparently inherited from VOA and not much changed by BBC which draws on VOA. I finally admitted I wasn't going to be comfortable with a copyedit-and-publish, though, so I wrote up all(?) my concerns above the scale of word-choice, and reviewed it as not ready with those review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 05:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not feel you've fully addressed the concerns raised by pizero and myself. You would need to be drawing from a source that is not being intellectually dishonest about the Iraq War. That might be Al Jazeera, or a European source which has consistently criticised the actions of the US in Iraq. Then, and I'm sorry to say this, you'd likely need to almost start from scratch having taken on-board the significantly different perspective.

Regardless of what VoA may say about their coverage, or their job as a news organisation, the purpose in setting up VoA was, and still is, propaganda. Sure, they're a million times better at it than Fox News, but they're draped in the flag nevertheless. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)