User talk:ToTheStone

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from User talk:Russell's teapot)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Gryllida in topic Re: Nepalese Communist parties to merge
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi. I've looked over the article; see my review comments. The most recent part of it is still only one day ago (despite the time delay before I was able to review it); cf. WN:Freshness.

Writing a first Wikinews article is a challenge; it's often been remarked we have a steep initial learning curve, which we try to help folks up, though most people find once they've got past that initial curve things get much easier. Earlier attempts are generally major learning experiences, regardless of whether they ultimately make it to publication (sometimes a first submission does finally get published, while at the other extreme some veteran Wikinewsies recall having lost more than one of their first few articles before they got the hang of it). --Pi zero (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Theresa May makes first cabinet as Prime Minister


Hi. I didn't feel I could address the difficulties as reviewer. Tried my best to provide useful review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

British rail minister Claire Perry steps down


Published. Congrats! See my review comments, and detailed edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Turkish president defeats coup attempt


I was wondering if you are going to add something to the article soon? Can I join you to complete the article?
acagastya 15:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Acagastya: will complete tommorow morning (UK) --Russell's teapot (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Okay. I will see it then. If I have something to add, I would. Well, to ping any user, use the {{ping}} template.
acagastya 17:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Three shot dead in Lincolnshire, UK


Though you have tagged the article as {{breaking}} news, as per style guide, it must not be under minimal length.
acagastya 11:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Acagastya: How could Iflesh it out when there is no more detail available? --Russell's teapot (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
The sources would be updated sooner or later. Plus, there might be other sources which might have extra information. Well, I was wondering if you could help with Police officers shot in Baton Rouge, Louisiana if time permits, please?
acagastya 11:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Acagastya: I`ll try, but I`m quite new here
Breaking stories are a corner of our practices that hasn't been exercised much in recent times. I left some review comments on the subject. --Pi zero (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
My reviewing has been especially sluggish for the past couple of days. I have this (sometimes annoying) rule to never apologize for not reviewing, since it's all volunteer labor — but I really do feel bad about not getting back to this article later on Tuesday (at which time there would have been no freshness problem), or on Wednesday (at which time an update might have made it fairly timely). Review comments --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Article views


@Pi zero: Is there any way of finding out the view count per article? It would be interesting, and rather nice, to have a number showing that I am not writing into a void, even if the number is low. I was only able to find a website for wikipedia articles.

On any given article, looking at the page history, just above the list of revisions there should be a link that says "page view statistics". That link got changed recently, but the new toollabs thing seems to work tolerably well (although it's reporting an error for the article just published, probably because wherever it gets its data doesn't have anything accumulated that quickly; the old link ran about a day behind, I think, so maybe the new one does too). --Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer status


@Pi zero: It appears that you are currently the only reviewer currently active on wikinews. The work you do is incredible but there are limits to the amount one person can do. It seems logical to me therefore that I should aim to at some point become a reviewer. I know what being a reviewer is and can see it requires a certain level of experience, but there is no explanation of what this level is. Any advice of what I can do to get the expertise required? or is it just a matter of time? --Russell's teapot (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This gives me a feeling of deja vu. Have you asked about this before, or what it someone else? Hm.

The character of review, and therefore the character of the reviewer selection process, has changed since the larger number of reviewer nominations were considered; realistically, the process is based on precedent, and there's a recent shortage of precedents on which to base it. It might be useful for me to offer some historical perspective here on the broad sweep of how the character of review has evolved over the past few years; I may attempt to do that a bit later, but I'll defer it for now in favor of undertaking to do some review (having signally failed to get reviews done yesterday — and yes, the fact that an old friend of my mother's coming by to visit can take me out of review for an entire day is a facet of the problem). --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Pokes nose) it was Keithman3, who asked about the process of becoming a reviewer and said "The only reason I ask is to maybe become a reviewer and help around here, since you seem to be running a one-man show." To be honest, when I read this talk page today, even I felt somebody has asked in a similar fashion. By the way, Russell's teapot, I saw an article you wrote was published. Congratulations!
acagastya 19:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Acagastya: Thanks, hopefully I will get many more articles published in the future!--Russell's teapot (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
(another nose poker) Have you looked into becoming an accredited reporter here? That's a good starting point. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Bddpaux: thanks when I am free again in about two weeks I will try to become an accredited reporter. @Pi zero: also, both of you, is there an advantage other than getting a press card?Russell's teapot (talk)
You get an email address at, which is important because when you contact someone by email requesting an interview (most, though by no means all, of our interviews get conducted via email, with most of the documentation by forwarding the emails themselves to scoop), the interviewee is unlikely to take seriously a request from an address at or or the like. An email from someone at stands a better chance of being taken seriously. The record of accreditation is also placed on a fully protected page, so that third parties can verify it. Both are, of course, ways that the project vouches for the accredited reporter to third parties, which is why we're very careful about who we accredit. I'm not sure what the status of the press-cards thing is, atm. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, problems still.

One of the most annoying opaque pieces of advice about writing, in my experience, is "use your own words". It's one of those things that tends to click at some point with an aha moment. I tried to offer a different way of looking at it, that might help, in my review comments.

In the very best synthesis writing I've seen, a given sentence of synthesis often contains facts that were widely scattered in the sources, either in different sources or at distant points in a single source; and if multiple facts from a source sentence are used, they're likely to be widely scattered in the synthesis article. A really good example can be something of a revelation to study, and I've been wondering for years how to illustrate it for newcomers to Wikinews so they can see it "from the inside" as a reviewer does; I haven't managed it yet, but it's still on my agenda. --Pi zero (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pi zero: thank you very much for putting in so much effort to explain it to me.

Tensions rise between Russia and Ukraine over Crimea


Hi. Needs a recent focus; review coments. --Pi zero (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

'Uber' article....


Please review comments. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Reuters images


@Pi zero: What are the rules regarding the use of Reuters images? I have seen other news sources use them.

We cannot "fair use" any image copyrighted by another news agency. That's built into our fair use policy. --Pi zero (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
But I have noticed twice in the recent months, Al Jazeera releases some of the graphical photos in the Non-Commercial licence which can be used as fair use since Commons doesn't allow media which have restriction on the commercial use. When I was new here, even I used to think that we can use Reuters' photos. I guess, I am not alone.
acagastya 13:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Implying connection


@Pi zero: When writing a news article how does one include obvious but unconfirmed causation between two events, would I have to just provide a list of all the sources that have come to that conclusion to avoid analysis?

Generically (without looking at the particular circumstance), if you're not going to attribute, don't assert causation. A common technique is to juxtapose facts without claiming causation. One needs to be careful of this, not to introduce implicit bias, but in reasonable cases, when well done, it can alert the reader to possible connections while leaving the reader to judge whether there is actually causation involved. --Pi zero (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey


Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey


(Sorry to write in Engilsh)



Good to see you again! I was wondering if I would see your name in the RC this summer. Welcome back!
acagastya 13:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, being a school student I'm more free in summer. --Russell's teapot (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. There were problems that I felt wanted the reporter's touch. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply



It is good to see your username in the recent changes again. Welcome back!
•–• 22:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re: Nepalese Communist parties to merge



  • At the time of submission, it's best that the event happened today or yesterday, to allow one or two days for reviewing and revising.

Abandoned and to be deleted on March 7 (in 2 days) if work on it does not resume. --Gryllida (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Deleted (may be restored on request if there is a desire to write about a new development on a similar topic). --Gryllida (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply