User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2008/October

Signature

Hey, I noticed you have a raw signature, so i'm guessing you have a sig page somewhere? Instead of using that page as your raw signature and all the formatting appearing on talk pages, i.e.

[[User:ShakataGaNai|<span style="color:#8B0000">'''S'''hakata'''</span><span style="color:#006400">G'''a</span><span style="color:#00008B">'''N'''ai</span>]] ^{[[User Talk:ShakataGaNai|^_^]]}

have you ever considered using an autosig page, like User:ShakataGaNai/yourautosigpage, with just

{{User:ShakataGaNai/yoursigpage}}

on it, so that when you sign your signature on talk pages it just shows up as

{{User:ShakataGaNai/yoursigpage}}?

It just means talk pages are clear of all the formatting stuff :)

Sorry if this sounds confusing, or condescending... I was just curious as to whether you knew you could get rid of the text from talk pages :) -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that you post that. I don't have a sig page, I just have raw text dumped into my pref. As for using a Sigpage - that is very very very bad form. In fact if you click to "My Prefences" on Wikipedia you will see the following message: Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature. (in bold and everything). --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh right... why? Just seems like we may as well not be clogging up the talk pages with formatting, and we use them all the time on HeroesWiki. I presumed it was the same everywhere on wikipedia. My mistake. -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh! T H I S I S N O T W I K I P E D I A ! ! ! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"In fact if you click to "My Prefences" on Wikipedia you will see the following message: Do not use images, templates, or external links in your signature. (in bold and everything)." Doesn't this imply that your policy is the same/similar to wikipedia? I'm sorry I'm pretty confused. -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is SPARRRRRRRRRRRTA!!!! While this isn't Wikipedia (yes, Brian), we are still on the same servers. All these wonderful sites are run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Being busy sites that they are, anything that can be done by the users to reduce the load is generally a "Good Thing" and anything to make it worse is a "Bad Thing". Unessisary use of templates (IE: In Signatures) is a "Bad Thing" because signatures require more work from the server.

In Short. Turn off the damn template. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

FOI

You deleted my article 1 hour into the 2nd day of the abandonment notice. That's a bit much. My understanding was I had 2 (full) days. In other words, I had to move it forward today.

This morning, after I took care of our newborn so Mom could sleep and got my stepson off to school, I finally got to sit down to this article and develop it to the point where I could chase live source comment. This time is now wasted as is the several hours I've already spent on it. Now I can't even retrieve that.

I also ran into technical problems while writing this which slowed down the process further. Firefox bogged down to a crawl and Wikinews would not save the edit. I ended up copying and pasting the article back in after resolving those issues but WikiEd made a hash of that requiring more time to clean that up which brought me full circle to the same problems. But the abandon clock is running and there's no stopping it.

I'm sure the hard-core Wikinewsers sit around and wonder how to attract new people. It seems counter-productive to waste their time when they do show up.

The article topic is not event or time-based (as I explained in the talk page). Canada's FOI issues are not going to go away in the next few days. So, while I understand issues of server usage (which does not trump the fact they are there TO BE used) and most articles will die on the vine in 48 hours, this is not one of those.

While we're sticking up for Wikinews principles how about getting people to do actual journalism as opposed to blogging? I.E. sourcing press releases, (non-news) publications and live sources. Rehashing unchecked source material from other published stories is not journalism and it's not news. Simply checking that someone copied their facts correctly from another story is not editing. There' no way to tell if the original facts were checked.

Why am I banging on about this here and now? Because an article about a deep and broad issue (that also happens to lie at the heart of journalism) can't be done in 48 hours by someone who has a full-time job, kids, etc. The {{abandon}} clock has been running in my head for 36 hours. I organised my whole life so I can get back to the article you deleted prematurely. Now I have nothing better to do than write this. I know there's a an undelete process. While it would be convenient to have the content. I'll just recreate it from scratch.

Most of my experience at Wikinews has been less than uplifting. Mainly because of the high-handed and (to a newcomer anyway) arbitrary behaviour of the (self-appointed?) admins. I realize this is a Wiki and people will cross wires once in a while but you guys might want to try actually communicating with the other users before deleting their work.

Netscr1be (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Few items in reply.

1. We are not self appointed admins. All admins are appointed by the community. In fact, voted upon by the community. No one gets admin rights unless the community deams them fit.
2. I'd really appreciate it next time if you used the standard "Add Comment" Button on my talk page rather than re-arranging my page and changing other peoples comments. That is fairly minor, but a nicety
3. If you are going to post about a specific article on someones talk page, perhaps include a link, or at least the page title.
4. As for your issue of abandonment. The article was tagged on October 7th, today is the October 9th. It got it's 2 days. The system is by date, nothing else.
5. The reason it was tagged as Abandoned was because it hadn't been edited since October 5th.
6. For future reference, you can "Stop" the "Abandon Clock". Simply clicking the "edit" button on the article, removing the {{Abandon}} tag and writing an edit summary of "Hey, I'm planning to do more work on this" is more than enough to stave off deletion for a good while. We understand that people have real lives or what not. But I assure you that 95% of the articles deleted as abandoned as really truly abandoned. In fact of all the pages I've deleted as such, you are the first to even mention it.

Now that is out of the way. I'm sorry you feel slighted by my actions, but as you can see, I was just following the proccess. We're not out to get you here, and it isn't even about the server space. Since Wikinews is a _news_ site, we don't want to be publishing old articles, so basically anything that is more than about 3 days old generally is considered "Stale" and wont be published anyways. If you'd like, I can restore your article, but be forewarned that without more recent sources or Original Reporting, it wont pass review.

--ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

thank you much

for reviewing the pacman jones article and publishing it i just have one more article that needs to go under the review its about Bobby Orr the hockey player thanks again. --72.73.67.78 18:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time, remove the {{Develop}} tag when you put it into {{review}}. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

gotcha thanks again. --72.73.67.78 18:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the title? "Football cowboys cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones can't discuss police incident" The first part doesn't make sense at all. Cowboys are a team, they need a capital "c" and the it's American Football: or NFL:. ;) —Calebrw (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Mike Lebowitz, Chairman of The Modern Whig Party

Could you do a peer review for the article above? Thanks. --WNewsReporter (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

this article is full of errors and false news

I understand you reviewed [1] and I wanted to give you a chance to review the contrary evidence for it on the talk page. Thank you. Shutterbug (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution, but you completely changed the article. Why not post in the talk page what you feel is wrong? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 03:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I did (you moved it, remember?). Please answer the question. Shutterbug (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• SGN, as a 'for your information' snippet, Shutterbug is also an editor on Wikipedia where his account name used to be COFS and it was confirmed as editing from a Church of Scientology computer. There is a clear conflict of interest here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Homes of six Minnesota politicians vandalized

I'll work on this article when I get home. It's a big local story, even if it is a bit stale now. —Calebrw (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)