User talk:William S. Saturn/2011

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

Calm down[edit]

The article will be reviewed. There's no rush. (Considering that interviews like this one won't get stale soon...) Diego Grez return fire 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want the interviewee to feel like I'm dragging my feet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In these circumstances, the "mainstream" response would be that it's with your editor(s) ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibition interview[edit]

I'm partway through review, gotta run for a bit. One thing that'll need to be fixed - you've cited Wikipedia for the Capone quote; in turn, WP's reference has died. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable resource, you'll need to track down a source for that (try Googling the quote). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a slight rebuke, misrepresenting Wikinews is frowned upon when contacting people for interviews. Wikinews isn't viewed by "millions" daily -- more like 85,000 (according to Wolfram Alpha). Last month, the Main Page had 399,551 page impressions; vaguely amusingly, Special:Autologin garnered 1.3 million. — μ 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to verify "It reached..." to "Twenty-first amendment." I'm pretty sure it's not in those four sources. Annoyingly, everything else - including the actual news, the interview - checks out fine. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accreditation Request[edit]

Hi there! Just letting you know you have a new question on your accreditation request. Have a nice day! ~YTT T | C 04:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Were you ever able to get a photo of Hedges? —Mikemoral♪♫ 18:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him a few days ago, but he has not responded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a photo has been added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Since I gather you sort of skip forward through time at Wikinews —not here a lot of the time— I'll point out a couple of policy updates during 2010 you might have overlooked.
  • Most importantly, when you make substantive changes to an article after publication —where "substantive" equals anything that wouldn't be allowed on an archived article under the archive policy— you do not sight your own edit. So substantive changes after publication receive independent review just as those before publication did.
The point in this case is that, even if you had added the image a few minutes after publication, that was not something that could have been done to an archived article, so having made the edit you shouldn't have sighted it yourself.
  • Substantive changes to an article are now not allowed more than 24 hours after publication; it used to be, as I recall, inconsistent, saying 36 hours in one place and 48 hours in another.
In this case, you added the image well over 24 hours after publication; just shy of 36 hours, in fact.
--Pi zero (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. You can add the photo to the main page now.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acc Req[edit]

I have closed your accreditation request as successful. Now, please contact Brian McNeil to give you access to a Wikinewsie account, etc. Also, please leave us a note at Wikinews talk:Credential verification, in order to add you to the accredited reporters list. Congratulations! Diego Grez return fire 00:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please give your input, please![edit]

I am attempting a Dispute resolution at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse, and I am soliciting your input as to the problem. I urge you to give feedback. Soliciting input is the next step in the Dispute resolution process. Please do! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interviews U.S. Libertarian Party potential presidential candidate R.J. Harris[edit]

Great interview!  Reminder — do not self-sight post-publish edits that wouldn't be allowed to an archived article; it's self-publication. This should not have been self-sighted. --Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I forgot about that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for passing the article! Mattisse (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again![edit]

For passing Clarence Clemons, Springsteen’s E Street Band sax player, dies at 69. It was a rather complicated article (I thought) in terms of verifying the sources, so I really appreciate you! Mattisse (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it took some time to go through all the sources, but I'm glad to help.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again, Soviet human rights activist Yelena Bonner dies aged 88, thanks! And again! UN report says 80 per cent of world's refugees live in poor countries. You seem fearless in taking on my prose! Mattisse (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is payback for all those GA reviews you did for me last summer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you remember me with kindness in spite of this. Mattisse (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You made very good suggestions for that article. It's not your fault that the administrators found it necessary to block your very productive account (and it doesn't make sense why they focus on punishment rather than a fresh start). Rebecca finished the GA review, and it passed the FA (my first and only so far).--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related news[edit]

How did you find the Related news for Brazil spots unknown tribe of indigenous people in Amazon jungle which you so kindly published? I looked and looked but there were so many entries in the Category "Brazil" and nothing seemed to fit. What is your technique, please? Mattisse (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered seeing a similar article a few years ago, so I typed "new tribe" into search and it was the first result.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Humm. I never would have thought of that. I think I don't know how to use "search" well. Mattisse (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for passing my articles! (You seem to be the only one that reads them). Mattisse (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm sure many people read them, they're very interesting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reviewer nomination[edit]

Thanks for supporting my nomination! Regarding Philippines and US hold naval drills in South China Sea amid territorial dispute, are you allowed to review that article? Or are you too involved? It seems to me that we have a shortage of reviewers for that article, since too many people may have gotten involved. :/ Ragettho (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm too involved in that article. Ask Blood Red Sandman since he did the first review. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger. :( If it doesn't get reviewed overnight (I'm in the US), then I'll poke Blood Red Sandman. Ragettho (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've poked Blood Red Sandman, though I was admittedly late in doing so. I've added extra information to keep the article from going stale. Hopefully it'll be enough. Maybe I should start poking around for other reviewers? Ragettho (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Check the recent changes to see who's currently active.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just left a message for MikeMoral about the review.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for passing my article on Independence Day and Republicans! I'm glad you found it to be interesting! Ragettho (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and happy Independence Day.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the help with Over half of Romanian terminal grade students fail baccalaureate exam. I hate to see a good faith submission not get published. Mattisse (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was going to publish it myself but I had edited it too much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

belated thanks[edit]

Hey! Thanks a lot for reviewing US government reports decline in teen birth rate and binge drinking, rise in poverty and drug abuse. I appreciate the small, but clearly significant, change you made prior to passing it.

Quick question: is it generally encouraged that we use pictures already on file before uploading new ones? In this particular article, there were several pictures from Commons I could have used, but just happened to really like a picture I found on flickr. Ragettho (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, use the photo that fits the best, whether it be on file or on flickr. Flickr is a very good source for images, but just be sure they have the correct license.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Paul announces he will not seek House re-election in 2012; will focus on U.S. presidential campaign[edit]

Although I did publish it, there was a deeply unfortunate snag with the Dr. No sentence. I commented on the article talk. --Pi zero (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions?[edit]

For Obama raises $35M re-election funds from 244 campaign "bundlers", since you write impeccable political articles? Suggestions/help would be gratefully accepted. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone moved the article to "Publish", but I would feel much more comfortable if you looked it over. I tried to focus on just one thing, as there were so many numbers the article could easily grow confusing. Mattisse (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it true that the max individual contribution is $5,000 max? I couldn't find a source for that. Mattisse (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the campaign, yes, but it's 30,800 for the committee. I'm clarifying it right now. It's in this article--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could go ahead and publish it anyway, as your changes to the article seem to me to be about the same as you usually make to my articles. It don't think you crossed the line It looks like no one else will publish it and it is about to go stale. Mattisse (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Your help is greatly appreciated and all your judgments sound. While I think the lede perhaps could be improved, I don't like the current proposed revision. Puts do much emphasis on the death, whose relationship to the current spate of resignations/arrests is unclear. It shouldn't be in the lede as it is unduly sensationalizing. Nothing more regarding the death has emerge. He was an ill substance abuser. Not unusual for such a person to be found dead. Just my opinion. Mattisse (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theory goes to U.S. Court in Denver[edit]

I believe personal questions do not belong in an Article's talk page. Please delete the entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stapler80 (talk • contribs)

We need to determine if there's a conflict of interest here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

It seems to me that editors here in writing stories don't really "get the story". Like in Arrests and resignations as probe into Britain's phone hacking scandal widens, the editor who originally edited it, and decimated it, completely missed the real "story". Fortunately, between the two of us, we were able to restore most of it. But the focus relentlessly on Murdoch that they insisted upon was wrong. The real story, as is coming out today, is the political corruption, the police corruption, the other Fleet Street papers, etc. which was in the original article and was ripped out. Just my opinion. I believe I have a nose for the real story that others don't seem to have. You may not agree. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be misunderstood, Murdoch is a story, but it was not the story I was writing about. The editor who changed everything changed the focus to the completely trivial, in my opinion. Perhaps the British want to blame it all on Murdoch, but to me that was not the story. You may disagree. But in any case, I greatly thank you for your help in restoring most of it. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Murdoch should not have been the main focus of the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, detailed stories should be the aim, but it's unrealistic to expect someone to add detail to an article before it ceases be news. If I see that a contributor has decided that an article is ready, then I will do a copy-edit, check sources and judge whether or not it meets the criteria.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess that is the harsh truth. And why I won't be contributing any more. That wikinews thinks that it can compete with other news organizations and radio/tv is its great failing. I give up. Why read wikinews when I have already heard/read the headlines that come on hourly on the radio? If it can add nothing to what I already know, then why read it? It is more incomplete than the average article aready on the internet. Mattisse (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like wikipedia, it's just an experiment. But a good thing about wikinews is that it's a free place for citizen journalists from every corner of the world to meet and report on things that the mainstream media sometimes avoids. Furthermore, editing and reading it exposes one to things that they would probably miss otherwise. For example: I never would have known that Lizards are capable of problem-solving, or that such magnificent creatures were discovered in Luzon; I never would have known all the details of the phone-hacking scandal to engage in conversation with others about. Lastly, the best thing about wikinews is that it can change lives and convince readers that they too can be a journalist. It literally gives a voice to the voiceless.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are too kind. I believe that I am right in thinking that it is due to you that those articles were passed, not to the wikinews communitiy that is generally hostile to anything I write. The idea is good, but that is not how it works here. If it were not for you, none of my article would have been published. Mattisse (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you started here earlier in the year, I was not active. However, from then until June 18, when I first reviewed one of your articles, you had already amassed 63 articles published by others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I had to beg, plead, canvas for each one to get it published, meanwhile continually searching the internet for updates to keep the article from going stale. The improvement when you came and started passing them was immense. Articles stayed in the queue for days with no review passing. And considering I am practically the only editor that is not a reviewer! Red Blood Sandman (who no longer seems to be around nominated me, but the reviewer who recently passed British painter Lucian Freud dies aged 88, after two minutes without checking the sources was the one that put the cabash on my nomination. Yet an editor who has barely edited on wikinews passed with flying colors, then immediately passed Scientists create schizophrenic brain cells. Mattisse (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can nominate you again if you want. You'll surely pass this time since you've written so many articles and have gained a reputation for maintaining journalistic integrity.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I was nominated the last time I had already written more articles than most reviewers. Being a reviewer would just make me more of a target. But thanks anyway. I appreciate your support. My other supporter Blood Red Sandman seems no longer to be around.
I'm interested in writing more in depth, off beat articles, ones that readers don't normally come across, whereas wikinews only comes alive when there is a world wide tragedy and then the articles written here contain less information that a normal news article. Except for what they can cop from wikipedia, even if unsourced there. You can see what they did to Arrests and resignations as probe into Britain's phone hacking scandal widens - it's so easy to blame it all on Murdoch. Just target someone and go with it. Don't try to pull together sources and provide more depth, consistency, and understanding than the average news article. And especially as they want the UK "slant". I'm not interested in giving a POV slant.
I thank you greatly for your kind words and support. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly would like to read some "more in depth, off beat articles". --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Martin[edit]

Well.... The way I see it, it only needs one quick email asking for further comment on xyr legal threats "before we ublish them". I'd be willing to ask him myself. However, since he's actively threatening you, it's something you'd have to be comfortable with. Me, I feel the public, expecially the US public who gets to vote in this, should get to see that - but ethically, this is a volunteer org not a pro site, so you'd be on your own if there's trouble and obviously I can't expect anyone to agree to that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am near certain that he will not cooperate. He thinks that wikipedia is a website run by Obama used to attack him. He now thinks that wikinews is a "front" for wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<grin> Me too, but it's ethical to extend him the chance before/if we run it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Martin has taken great offense to the article and is threatening legal action. Not sure how to proceed, but forwarded his e-mail to scoop.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're comfortable with the legal threat, I would very much like to see the article published. But if you'd rather cover your arse - I can't say I'd blame you - I think we can speedy it. Of course, that means allowing him to believe that he has won. It's your call. Honestly, I don't think he has a case, but IANAL, so don't rely on a word I say. It might be worth asking him if he would like the article to be deleted before we do it - it's possible that you could come to some arrangement or other. DENDODGE 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to be bullied by this guy. I have responded to his e-mail and sent a bcc to scoop.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I wouldn't think it could be speedied. Voluntarily withdrawing a published article seriously impacts the whole project so ought to be put to the community. --Pi zero (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone's watching this thread please take a look at U.S. Presidential candidate Fred Karger denied place at Fox News debate, in its current form it needs to be reviewed before 4 pm central time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Karger piece, I'm seeing only one source specifically about the focal event (Karger denied a place). That needs fixed ASAP, but as it's urgent I'll start factchecking on what's already there right away. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Hey there! I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank you for contributing Wikinews interviews Andy Martin, U.S. Republican Party presidential candidate. You are to be commended for your clear attention to detail, resilience in the face of threats to pursue legal action, and determination to ask probing questions to the interviewee. Furthermore, your commitment to developing a fine and extensive corpus focusing on US politics, in addition to generously giving your time to review articles (including the long and complex Yani Tseng captures Women's British Open title for a record fifth major), simply could not have made a greater impact on our mission to disseminate free-content news. For these reasons, I award you a Barnstar of Liberty. :) Ragettho (talk) 04:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the star. It is very much appreciated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well deserved. (Shiny star, too. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for comment Pi zero.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you BRS. I'm glad you've been here to review some of my articles.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand[edit]

Why isn't it newsworthy?--Screwball23 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it happened 10 days ago. "News does cease to be news"--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Main Page[edit]

Just noting, I replied to your comment there. --Pi zero (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've read it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas drought[edit]

I'd be happy to forward any e-mails, but my interviews were all done by phone.Bddpaux (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

review request[edit]

Hi! When you have some time, could you please help to review Wikinews interviews Chinese-American martial artist Alfred Hsing? I forwarded the interview to the scoop@ address. This my first interview article on wikinews, any comment/advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot! Teemeah (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was about to do it but now I see that it has already been reviewed. Good work.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin[edit]

Hi! I've closed your RfP request as a success, and handed you the tools. A fine life of blocking flaming kittens lies ahead of you. :p Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Cain: SimCity rumor 'a lie'[edit]

Can we get a second, independent source for the news event? (I suggested this shouldn't be too difficult, on the article talk.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to resubmit for review when you're ready. (...?) --Pi zero (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gingrich[edit]

I enjoyed the Gingrich article, btw. --Pi zero (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for the review.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background for Richardson interview[edit]

I've got stuff left over that I can't verify; I listed every last thing on the article talk, big and small alike. Meanwhile, in a little while I mean to check the interview itself against scoop, which should (surely) leave the background shortfall as the only remaining glitch. The shortfall has that something-odd-happened feel to it, like e.g. when a source accidentally gets left off the list, or when a source article gets completely rewritten between when the author and when the reviewer look at it (that one happened to BRS just yesterday). --Pi zero (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the scoop check. So there's only the background left. --Pi zero (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling 'abandoned', Gary Johnson will drop GOP bid to pursue LP presidential nomination, insiders say[edit]

Can't access the FEC source; noted on article talk. --Pi zero (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel the lede needs rewriting —I discuss in depth on article talk — outside my purview as independent reviewer. Oh, and the headline makes me uncomfortable too, but I expect it'll be clear what to do with that once the lede is addressed. (Awfully sorry this is running so late; I'd hoped to review your article first thing when I got up this morning, but BRS's breaking news changed my plans.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. We're all volunteers here so there's no such thing as late. I'll try to resolve the issues.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not there yet.
I've tried to turn over as fast as I could on this, for at least some chance you'd see my comments tonight. And I've tried to write review comments to explain clearly the difficulty I'm seeing. --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alzheimer's image[edit]

I'd been planning to rejuggle the leads in one fell swoop (which took some time to set up), and had lined up the PET scan image for the Alzheimer's story — but then noticed you'd made it a lead (very reasonably putting it in the oldest spot) with a fish image that I rather liked. I was tempted, but in the end stuck with the PET scan, not sure if it was more "dignified", or easier since I already had it set to go, or —mostly likely— had brighter colors. Anyway, it won't bother me if you want to sub in the fish image (now in the number one spot, as I found the suicide story there rather downbeat). --Pi zero (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PET scan is probably better.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign manager: 100 percent chance Buddy Roemer will run for Americans Elect presidential nomination[edit]

Our Facebook "feed" unfortunately doesn't feed automatically anymore, it requires some sort of manual intervention for each article, and I haven't yet gotten 'round to learning from BRS what to do (there may also be an access privileges issue). --Pi zero (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been curious about how linking in certain places affects views. Is there any information on why Sexy video clips influence young girls more than boys, study shows is usually the top viewed article?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We figure that one is because it comes up whenever someone on the internet does a search on a set of keywords similar to "sexy video young girls". --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the campaign trail, November 2011[edit]

Just to let you know, I hope to get to this tomorrow morning. Alas, I was up late on Wikinews several nights running, and don't handle short sleep as well as I used to. I just started doing a preliminary copyedit on this article, and my eyes started glazing over before I'd got to the bottom of it. --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be trouble verifying the Fred Karger bit because it was done over facebook. Any ideas on how this can be verified?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how things are done on Facebook; is there someplace to look to see the material? (A url?) I do have an account, because I once needed to create it to access something for a review.
I'm keeping a running tally of review-snags on the article talk. I've removed-for-the-moment one section (the cartoons, whether I chuckled isn't really the point :-), and will likely be doing the same with the Wikipedia item — both discussed on article talk. There's clearly enough material to run with even without either of those or Karger, but the Karger thing seems worth fighting to keep. --Pi zero (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
High time I learned to use Facebook, not that I mean to much, but that it's limiting not to have it in my toolkit. What info do you need in order to forward? First/last name? (Pizero Wikinewsie)
Although it would be very good to get this, in some ways we're making a mountain out of a molehill. We take transcriptions of handwritten notes as OR notes (from trusted reporters, of course, which is rather the point of our reputation-based system), so your transcription on the talk page is marginally good enough for what it provides, though a bit more in the way of meta-information about the exchange would be preferable. I'm about ready to trim a bit here and there on the Karger section that doesn't seem verified from what's provided, pull the battleground, and publish. --Pi zero (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the url for your page? Also, can maybe a few photos from IowaPolitics be used?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
┌─────────┘
The image cut was pretty devastating to that section, I know. But it's my understanding we don't take an image from another news org, let alone several.
URL for my page? Er... I'm guessing, this? --Pi zero (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you a friend request. It looks like we have to be friends to forward messages.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently we're now friends. A software application has said it, so it must be true. --Pi zero (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry the gallery didn't work out.
I did get the email forward; thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interviews Darcy Richardson[edit]

This redirect could become a liability later, if Wikinews were to interview him again. Our avoidance of unspecific headlines being, after all, to prevent collision with future headlines as well as with past ones. What did you have in mind to use the redirect for? --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to show it to the Boston Tea Party people, but the long url wouldn't fit. So I thought if I created a shorter redirect it would fix the issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use a URL shortener... enwn.net perhaps? 190.20.85.4 (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera[edit]

Had you noted Al Jazeera's recent decision to put their flickr photostream under CC share-alike? Making it fair game for Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't notice that. That's good news.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_S._Saturn/2011&oldid=1355154"