User talk:ShakespeareFan00

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

/News Briefs



Welcome[edit]

ShakespeareFan00, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Chiacomo (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Audio Wikinews[edit]

I would be the one who is doing Audio Wikinews, along with Gumboyaya, is there anything I can help you with? terinjokes User Page / Talk 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Urban Planning...[edit]

Great work...

Assuming the solution suggested on the talk page is acceptable, and the articles aren't copyvio keep going :)

BTW Are you in Urban Planning professionally?

ShakespeareFan00 22:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I'm not in Urban Planning, but I've written real estate stories before. The text wasn't written by me, but by a new user user:Steins. I've searched for the text on google - I don't think it is a copyvio. --Grace E. Dougle 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

proposed articles[edit]

hi, just wanted to let u know that there's an idea to replace the proposed articles list on the newsroom by allowing users to write brief reports in Wikinews Shorts.  — Doldrums(talk) 10:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Audio Wikinews[edit]

I wanted to ask you what the status was on any Wiki-radio projects you know of? Is WikiCast dead? Do you think our audio can be used on other wiki-radio projects? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I have skype, it's listed on my userpage: steven_fruitsmaak is my username on skype, I'm usually there somewhere between 5 and 12 pm UCT. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

leeds accomodation investigation?[edit]

Why was this taken of the colab requests? I am assuming because it wasn't a story yet? ShakespeareFan00 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primarily it was because it listed with the entire url and not as an internal link. Also, the fact that the story prep is empty is a factor. I think it should point to the active investigation instead. I will re-add it as such and you can see how to use the internal link. I should have done that right away, but got distracted. Cheers and happy editing, --SVTCobra 23:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

I unpublished the Chief Constable in Court for road offences story because as of right now there is no news in it. Compare to the story we had on Oct. 31 and look at the date of the sources.

Articles, which are original reporting and that have notes posted on the collaboration page, do not need additional sources as you commented about Branding professionals in Taiwan promoted on the "Smiling Curve" in the "2007 Taiwan Brands' Trend Forum". --SVTCobra 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews:Story preparation/Leeds, England rented student accomodation investigation.[edit]

FYI: You were among the people that worked on this. I am considering this abandoned and will be nominating it for deletion. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bhutto death[edit]

Ta for the info, I'll check it out next time :) Guinness2702 14:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Obits...[edit]

Thanks for the feedback on last weekend's obits article. Not sure if I can guarantee a weekly or regular appearance, as that article actually took a fair bit of time to put together, even with sources and content readily available. Regular features really require some sort of group effort - witness the on/off action with the Audio Wikinews. However, I could rough in an obits article for this weekend and hope people can contribute and expand things. DL+1613 03:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: OMM Converage[edit]

Sadly all my edits got removed. Nobody said why. Sigh Johnellis (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ze German trademark law...[edit]

Hi, here's my business card with babel, email and the whole enchilada. Cheers, --Gnom (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revert image of Apeldoorn[edit]

Hi there. I have reverted your edit on the article about the Koniginnedag incident. The reason was that the image you provided had a dutch caption and had a worse frame of reference than the previous image you provided. Greetings, 193.244.33.47 13:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publishing[edit]

Hi - if Im not mistaken, only "Editors" can publish articles, as they have to be sighted to show up on the front page. As far as I know, even for breaking news, the process for this is to review the article first (also by an Editor). So Ive changed the Dutch article to "breaking review", which usually get it attention relatively quick (fraid I have other stuff on my hands just now, was merely browsing by the Wikinews). Regards (and of course feel free to ask back if you have questions) Sean Heron (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that there is another, slightly longer article: Car_plows_into_crowd_during_Dutch_Queen's_Day_celebrations . If you have the time, you might try to merge the article you were working on into that one. Sean Heron (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK winter[edit]

I think these articles are getting rather redundant. Perhaps you could hold back on writing more for a few days? Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snow Video[edit]

Thanks :-) I'm looking to do some interviews with locals at some point, I'm planning to do a follow up video at some point, possibly tomorrow or when the thaw starts. I don't have any contacts in the Parish Council, but I'll certainly have a look around. The local newsletter, for which I write, comes out on a quarterly basis (with the next one in January), so I'm not sure what they'll be saying about it. I'm on good terms with the editor, though, so I'll have a word. wackywace 17:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scrapyard burns in East London[edit]

Unfortunately, another user added a "review" tag to the above article and I had to fail it. I am unsure whether you were finished with the article, abandoned it, or planned on adding to it, but it seemed incomplete and did not stress the newsworthiness of the event.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thomas Read Kemp[edit]

I am interested in the drawing of TRK by Lawrence; are you able to email me on the subject? My office holds many of the family's papers best wishes Christopher Whittick Senior archivist, East Sussex Record Office christopher.whittick@eastsussex.gov.uk

<p>[edit]

Although technically of course <p> is the first half of a matching pair of delimiters for a paragraph, i.e., <p> before the paragraph and </p> after the paragraph, authors of html pages have, from the earliest days, usually used <p> as a standalone separator between paragraphs. Does it really make sense to change a <p> at, say, the end of a template expansion (where it presumably is there to guarantee a paragraph separation from any following text) to a <p></p> which seemingly specifies an unimagined empty paragraph? --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well what does the HTML standard actually say? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Html caters, especially in some of its simplest (and therefore most humanly manageable) aspects, to human authors as well as automatic generators; exactly which parts of this catering is done officially in the html standard, versus how much of it is in the implementations of web browsers, idk.
Historical digression: The increasing prevalence of machine-written html, which tends to be humanly-unreadable even when it sticks to the simplest of html elements, tended I think to degrade html as a practical markup language for humans, and was partly responsible for creating the problem that wiki markup answered to tilt things back in the humanly-usable direction. Html has been less-often written by humans since the rise of wiki markup, but, besides various non-wiki situations, traces of html are still needed to augment the imperfectly-realized wiki markup. </historical digression>. :)
--Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duly noted. I can ignore the P issue for now, but the use of single P might be something that needs a special case in the Linter.

Article infoboxes[edit]

Hi. It looks like all of the templates on which you fixed lint errors today are article infoboxes which are candidates for being upgraded to {{Infobox}}, so it would be more helpful to upgrade them. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free, I was working within my competence. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fairness, converting infoboxen sometimes requires adding categories to the transcluding pages, most of which are of course fully protected. There are also horizontal infoboxen that {{infobox}} doesn't handle and I never decided how best to bring within the system. --Pi zero (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pray tell, what is the purpose of fixing lint 'errors' in signatures. Surely, the most sensible thing is to just tell the user to fix their signature customization. --SVTCobra 20:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would fix it for future uses, it wouldn't fix the many existing uses. If you want me to discontinue the efforts ....ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are the "future" uses? I don't understand. Keep in mind, I am probably the least tech savvy person on this project. Sorry if I am being "thick" but there are so many signatures on talk pages. Are you proposing to fix lint on the pages and pages of archived talk? --SVTCobra 20:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's what the effort was intended to do, However I am perfectly happy to UNDO every single edit, and put back lint errors if you feel that would be more appropriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And to be fair, It might be better if the fix that was being implemented was done by a script, so it's done in one massive batch...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SVTCobra: , I'm pausing, and will consider UNDOing any effort made so far unless I get a clear response. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC) @ShakataGaNai:, I would suggest checking your signature customisation, as many of the entries here: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting&dir=prev&offset=13418983&namespace=4 seem to relate to signatures you left on content previously, and obviously before things were handled more strictly by the Mediawiki backend. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict) No, and I didn't ask for UNDOs. But you didn't answer the first question. And while you haven't asked, you may be wondering why I am concerned about what you are doing. The reason is, every time you edit something on a page that has been static for a long time, somebody else needs to look at it and see if it was done correctly. Otherwise randoms could vandalize most of the site. So, your benevolent and good-faith edits are making a demand on other people. For this, I ask a reason. What are the future benefits for us all to contribute to your fixing of lint errors? Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The future benefit, is that the HTML generated from the wikitext markup is well-formed to a defined standard, meaning that :
  1. It's possible for future updates to the back-end to be made without having to consider edge cases caused by previous non-standard coding.
  2. The rendering of a given page, can be assured to generate a specfic well-formed HTML equivalent, which makes it easier to determine if something is actually a glitch in the rendering as opposed to a user-side mark-up error.
  3. Removing the lint errors, makes the site look more professional, (if anyone ever examines the HTML source in depth), and shows that the volunteer base care about this.
I appreciate your concerns about having to check edits (so they aren't vandalism or inadvertently break things), which is also partly why I'm pausing to let someone else review. Naturally the last thing I want do is inadvertently break things, owing to a lack of understanding about how something was 'supposed' to work, ( and in updating some Templates, I ran across situations where I could have made a fix, but didn't feel confident about doing so.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few miscellaneous thoughts.
  • Most of your changes appear to be fixing things that I find it hard to object to fixing, other than, as SVTCobra points out, the sheer volume of edits that need checking. Some of them, admittedly, I'm uncertain whether they originally worked or not. I've been pretty torn, philosophically and, moreover, strategically, about fixing stuff that actually works: on one hand, it makes us less vulnerable to having things broken by ill-conceived or poorly realized platform changes; on the other hand, it might make the Foundation feel more free to do things they frankly should not be doing.
  • If the Foundation is acting competently and in good faith, pretty much nothing they would actually do would break functioning wiki code. Which said, it's my experience that little things get (temporarily) broken often, by software updates in which, afaics, their purpose is to make changes in accordance with some vision of theirs. In the past their vision of where things should be headed has repeatedly turned out to be incompatible with the interests of the volunteer community, and summing all this up, I find myself reckoning that the Foundation is failing to meet at least one or the other of the two conditions at the beginning of this bullet item.
  • The rate at which we can conveniently check your edits is noticeably less than the rate at which you can make them. Edits to templates are more manageable; when you make those, I immediately check only that the revision just before your edit has been sighted; thus, your edit goes onto the flaggedrevs pending-changes queue, which is now extremely long; it's okay that the queue is extremely long, though, because the queue waits patiently for us to get to those items. Occasionally I'll knock off one or two of the oldest ones. As I write this, the oldest changes on the queue are 16 days old. However, as a practical matter, I find edits to talk pages or project pages have to be checked immediately, because those namespaces don't use flaggedrevs so there's no convenient way of remembering what edits you've made except by processing them immediately when they show up on RecentChanges. Thus, edits to these other namespaces are more of a burden.
--Pi zero (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IRC[edit]

Hi, do you happen to use IRC? If so, can you please join #wikinews-en?
•–• 17:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I use Discord mostly these days.. but okay..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi[edit]

I'm sorry if my comments elsewhere come across a bit strongly. Any frustration on my part is not directed at you. --Pi zero (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=4583545"