User talk:William S. Saturn/2012
Add topicI enjoyed this.
There were several details in one bit that I failed to adequately corroborate, which I noted in the review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. See between 10:23 and 11:00 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QspuRWVRx4&feature=related for Terry's statement that he plans to write himself in, followed by Supreme's statement that he would as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Rocky Anderson
[edit]Hi! I figured you'd want to know I've nommed your (fantastic) interview with Rocky Anderson at WN:FAC. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out this article, as possibly relevant On the campaign trail. --Pi zero (talk)
- Thank you for the heads up.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I've failed to find some things, noted on the talk page (what I've failed to find so far, anyway). Wondering if some emails to scoop could have been lost (e.g., during the move of wikinewsie.org from godaddy to its new home — in the Netherlands, I think). --Pi zero (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Two additional questions. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies on this. Next time I'll make sure I list all the sources before asking for a review.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- A thought. Last month as I recall, you had lists of sources per section on the talk page. That was extremely helpful; the links didn't necessarily matter, since I always load all the sources into browser tabs early in a review and keep them all till the end, but identifying which sources to look in for each section made review much easier. I think I meant to say so in my review comments, but then by the end of the review it slipped my mind. (Another technique Brian McNeil has sometimes used with long articles is to put html comments after each passage naming the source that verifies it.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I will do that again next time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- A thought. Last month as I recall, you had lists of sources per section on the talk page. That was extremely helpful; the links didn't necessarily matter, since I always load all the sources into browser tabs early in a review and keep them all till the end, but identifying which sources to look in for each section made review much easier. I think I meant to say so in my review comments, but then by the end of the review it slipped my mind. (Another technique Brian McNeil has sometimes used with long articles is to put html comments after each passage naming the source that verifies it.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies on this. Next time I'll make sure I list all the sources before asking for a review.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
You might recognise some of this article.
If not, refresh your memory with these two articles:
Yes, your contributions have ended up in print in The Raleigh Telegram.
I'm sending them a polite email thanking them for picking up our content, and asking they link to the source online; plus, we're Wikinews (not WikiNews). --Brian McNeil / talk 17:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
For 'On the campaign trail'
[edit]- Thank you. I appreciate it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Feedback
[edit]Hi William, I've been reading your work and following the election with a new perspective thanks to you. I was wondering if I could get your feedback on the Rand Paul story that's up in development right now. Any thoughts on improvement. Thanks, Crtew (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look at it later today.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Talk:On the campaign trail, March 2012#WSJ source. --Pi zero (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
William, Can I do a short interview with you tomorrow (Saturday morn)? Look at the script for this week's News briefs. Do you like the summary? If you could, would you give me this update, or a revised one, in your own words? It would be a great break from the monotony of me, hahaha. Crtew (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Inmate for President article
[edit]I wanted to ready this article, but I couldn't find any concrete content in the article that you'd taken from the January 28th source. If I missed it, please point it out to me. If N/A, please move that source to external links (or something of that ilk). Bddpaux (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- The article showed the vote count for the 2008 Idaho Democratic primary. If that was the only issue, there was no need to fail the review.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Was there another source that verified the vote total?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Having copyedited the interview itself (I'm about to tackle the intro), I left a query on the talk page about three passages, and interpolated about three apparently missing words into the text which you might take a look at; in all half dozen cases, the underlying theme is uncertainty over whether anomalies were in what was said or in its transcription. --Pi zero (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Will they listen? Probably not. But, it's always good to go over there every now and then and throw their toys out the pram. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Virgil Goode
[edit]Virgil Goode is making the news now. You probably saw this, but when I was reading, I though of you!
Best, Chad Crtew (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Big things are happening for Goode. A recent poll put him at 9% in Virginia. That's remarkable for a third party presidential candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
"I wrote over 200k worth of On the campaign trail, and all I got was this lousy trophy"
[edit]By my arithmetic —though I could easily have made a mistake somewhere— they add up collectively at this moment to 219000 bytes.
I've been thinking a lot about these articles. Any one of them would be an awkward fit to the Featured Article criteria, because one of the criteria is comprehensiveness, and each of these articles is a combination of a summary with specific foci on a few selected stories. But the series as a whole is some sort of Great Work. So I asked myself, what can be done to recognize the series as a whole? And here's what came to mind. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you and many thanks for the reviews. Three more to go.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Excellent work regarding the excellence!!
[edit]Y'know, I think Pi zero indicated well that FA status (or other) things would, in a sense, fall short of commending your efforts for the On the Campaign Trail set of articles! So, be it ever so meager, please accept my heartfelt kudos, thanks, and appreciation for it all!! --Bddpaux (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
It seemed, that........................
[edit].................in the very least, this was in order...............our newest award here at Wikinews:
---Bddpaux (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I appreciate it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Something new in my experience. I must have clicked the review button before you posted your remark on the talk page, so EzPR told me there was no talk page, so I didn't see your remark till after publication. --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
On the Paralympic review trail
[edit]I trust you won't be taken by surprise if it takes a while to work out how to reconcile On the campaign trail with the rest of our overloaded Paralympic review schedule. I saw this awkwardness coming at least a month ago, that On the campaign trail would inevitably come up for review during the Paralympics, and with careful planning I was able to come up with no advance plan to cope. Just have to play it by ear. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'll try and clear out the Paralympics stuff and beat that fire out. Should free-up Pi zero for the Campaign Trail, as he's more-familiar with those. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I appreciate it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
User:WSS
[edit]Supposing (as appears) you're using User:WSS as an alternate account, you (logged in as User:William S. Saturn) should put {{doppelganger|William S. Saturn}} on page User:WSS. (Example: User:Pi one) --Pi zero (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I found one thing I didn't see how to fix — I do believe it's wrong, I can't think of a rewrite that seems within my purview, and simply deleting it seems to me to change the impact of the surrounding section. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
US election story
[edit]Hi William,
Yesterday I wrote Obama and Romney enter final stretch in campaign for US Presidency; it's just been published. Just thought I'd let you know given this big election thing coming up next week.
Any plans on how to cover it? I'm thinking we should probably have a main announcement story (i.e. announcing who won) and maybe before that a sort of election roundup story. I will also try and write a story on the same-sex marriage ballot initiatives with the results from Maine, Minnesota, Maryland and Washington.
What are your current plans for election coverage on Wikinews? —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- I plan to finish with the On the campaign trail series and post an interview with Gary Johnson that I did on Tuesday.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The interview with Gary Johnson should be interesting! --CalF (talk) 18:09, 02 November 2012 (UTC)
Please complete the incomplete sentences in the second paragraph of the intro. Meanwhile I'm going to start working my way through the rest of the article, since the clock is obviously ticking. --Pi zero (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- There's next to nothing where the reporter's notes should be. Nothing at all on Scoop. Help me out here; my hairline is slowly receding as it is, I can't afford to be pulling more of it out (and I suspect I'm already going to lose some over negotiating the NPOV minefield of the presidential debates summary). --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Glitch discovered shortly before publication: The ballot access maps disagree with the source table of ballot access. I removed the maps before publication. --Pi zero (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Two snags observed. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)