User talk:The Wicked Twisted Road/archive

See my talk page; Tempo replied. Mikemoral♪♫ 03:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You should consider joining the WN:WWC2010 contest. --Mikemoral♪♫ 05:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with The New Mikemoral. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 15:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. That looks interesting, but I'm ashamed to say I'm not quite clear on how to enter. C628 (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Try Wikinews:Writing contest 2010/entrants. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but there's more clarification required. If I enter, do I just keep on editing as usual, or do I have to manually go through and update the standings and log as I go? And I'm assuming there's no restrictions or anything I'm subject to, even though I'm new here, right? Thanks in advance. C628 (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────┘
You write as normal. And as longs as [[category:C628 (WWC2010)]] and [[category:Writing contest 2010]] are added the reviewing JavaScript gadget will automatically add you points to the log. See this I'm sure the article you wrote today could be added as points. No restrictions.

Also the below should be helpful. If you have more question, just ask.

Mikemoral♪♫ 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hang on a minute. Why haven't you signed your name on the entrants list? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 08:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was asleep. No worries, I'm in now. :) C628 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Side note, perhaps you'd like to consider nominating yourself for editor status at WN:FRRFP, so you can review others' articles? I think you have enough experience under your belt that you'd pass. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks! I'll have to think about the editor thing, maybe in a week or so. Thanks again. Cheers, C628 (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi C628, thanks for your great contributions. Please note that QuoteBoxes are supposed highlight quotes that can be found within the article. They ought not be stand-alone quotes. Cheers, keep up the good work. --SVTCobra 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikinews Writing Contest 2010 Newsletter

The Wikinews Writing Contest 2010 Newsletter Weeks 5-6 - March 11, 2010 Current leaders The current leadership table looks like this: Rank User Points Articles 1 Tempodivalse 294 68 2 Rayboy8 181 38 3 Dendodge 159 13 4 Blood Red Sandman 110 14 5 Pmlineditor 106 17 6 Microchip08 96 24 7 C628 71 13 8 TUFKAAP 70 4 9 Bencherlite 65 11 10 RockerballAustralia 48 8 11 Tristan Thomas 46 2 12 The wub 45 7 13 MisterWiki 40 4 14 Wizardman 28 4 15 PoeticVerse 15 3 16 Adi4094 14 2 17 The New Mikemoral 6 2 18 Blurpeace 6 2 19 Benny the mascot 5 1 20 Juliancolton 4 2 Total 1201 198 A full list of users' articles is located at Wikinews:Writing contest 2010/Standings/log All scores correct at time of newsletter. Many thanks to The New Mikemoral whose bot delivered this to you. Newsletter compiled and written by Mikemoral. Any suggestions welcomed. The contest so far As of this newsletter, the Writing Contest 2010 participants have collected a total of 173 articles. This Week Rayboy8 comments for this newsletter. He is currently ranked 2nd in the competition. There have been some significant changes to the leaderboard over the last couple of weeks. One of the main changes is the fact that five more entrants for the competition have now started to create articles for the contest, meaning that five more users have now gone onto the leaderboard. The total number of competitors on the list was 20 the last time I checked. One user in particular, known by the name of C628, appears to have performed particularly persistently recently, going from not being on the leaderboard at all to climbing all the way up to seventh place. On a separate note, I also managed to reach second place recently, surpassing Dendodge's total. This shows you just what you can achieve if you put enough effort into writing articles over a certain period of time. Remember, it is still perfectly possible to build up a score that is higher than Tempodivalse's! I wish all of our competitors the very best of luck for the next month and a bit.

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 00:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Mikemoral♪♫ 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No worries. :) C628 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have promoted you to the Wikinews:Editor class, as I feel you can be trusted to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read:

• Wikinews:Flagged revisions
• Wikinews:Reviewing articles
• {{Peer review}}
• {{Review}}
• Reviewed article version
• Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

Tempodivalse [talk] 20:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I didn't want to do it, because I believe Foundation staff shouldn't be in an editorial role or making content decisions, but... that was just wrong. Clearly, factually inaccurate. I appreciate you taking care of it. Philippe (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. C628 (talk) 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Article Four dead after US helicopter crashes in Afghanistan wasn't sighted by EPR. That's a glitch that happens every once in a while; it's a good idea to always double-check after passing an article that EPR actually sighted it. An article doesn't show on the main page until it's in Category:Published and it's sighted, so until recently these articles disappeared into limbo and were only discovered months later. Recently there's a section in the Newsroom for Articles improperly published, which is how I noticed this one.

Just a thought, what browser were you using? --Pi zero (talk) 04:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay...so if that happens again, I just add [[Category:Published]] manually and everything's good? I was using Google Chrome. Thanks, C628 (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Sorry, poor description on my part; no, the category is added by the {{publish}} template. In the scenario I was describing, everything like that got done right except that the article didn't get sighted. Hm. After publishing, look at the article history (not the talk page history), and the published revision should have [sighted] after it. If it doesn't, view the article page itself — the {{review}} tag should be gone — and go to the bottom of the page. There should be a "share this" box of icons, which is the visible form of the {{publish}} tag. Assuming all that looks right, find the "Review this revision" box and click submit.

BTW, is it intention on your part that the sections of your talk page don't have edit buttons, or is that an unintended side-effect of something-or-other? --Pi zero (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Side note, that article wasn't added to the contest's article log either, I had to insert it manually. Might be something to contact Bawolff (talk · contribs) about, i've seen this recur several times now. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I think I get that...I'll probably just try to avoid reviewing articles with Chrome and use Opera instead. I left a note at Bawolff's talk page, so he should get that at some point. It's actually not my intention at all to have no edit buttons, I don't know why that happens, but I'm not that bothered by it, so I haven't taken the trouble to try and fix it. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The noeditsection is caused by the welcome template. change it to {{howdy}} to make them appear again. /me gets off his but and goes to figure out wtf is wrong with chrome. Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Like 99% of all bugs in easypeer review, I could not reproduce. :( Bawolff ☺☻ 02:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikinews Writing Contest 2010 Newsletter

The Wikinews Writing Contest 2010 Newsletter Final Edition, April 19, 2010 Final scores Rank User Points Articles (Auto count value) 1 Tempodivalse 433 109 (108) 2 Rayboy8 247 48 (49) 3 Pmlineditor 226 36 (39) 4 C628 212 43 (44) 5 Dendodge 159 13 (14) 6 MisterWiki 138 24 (26) 7 Blood Red Sandman 113 15 (14) 8 Microchip08 96 24 (24) 9 TUFKAAP 91 6 (5) 10 RockerballAustralia 85 14 (15) 11 The wub 77 11 (11) 12 Bencherlite 65 11 (12) 13 The New Mikemoral 61 7 (7) 14 Tristan Thomas 46 2 (2) 15 Adi4094 43 5 (6) 16 Wizardman 28 4 (4) 17 Blurpeace 16 4 (5) 18 PoeticVerse 15 3 (3) 19 Juliancolton 4 2 (2) Total 1483 257 A full list of users' articles is located at Wikinews:Writing contest 2010/Standings/log All scores correct at time of newsletter. Many thanks to The New Mikemoral whose bot delivered this to you. Newsletter compiled and written by Mikemoral. Any suggestions welcomed. The contest so far As of this newsletter, the Writing Contest 2010 participants have collected a total of 257 articles. Tempodivalse comments for this newsletter. He is the winner of the competition. Well, the three-month contest has finally drawn to a close. I must admit I've been somewhat disappointed with the results. Despite advertising it heavily, we didn't have nearly as many new users or as much news coverage as I had hoped, and closer to the end it completely faltered, so I didn't have any competition for first prize. Maybe there's something we can learn from this, though: instead of doing very long competitions hosted occasionally, we should perhaps have multiple shorter (i.e., week-long) contests spread out throughout the year - which may encourage more heavy editing. One thing I think we should keep for any future comps is the scoring system - which worked really well and encouraged in-depth writing, in my opinion. The contest was still pretty fun overall, though. Congratulations to user:Rayboy8 and user:Pmlineditor for taking second and third places, respectively. Thanks to everyone for participating, and especially to User:Brian McNeil for offering to host it and come up with most of the rules.

Hi, i've nominated you for adminship at WN:RFA, please indicate whether you accept the nomination at that page. Good luck. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi C628, i've promoted you to administrator now per your unanimously successful RFA. If you need any help with your new buttons, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 14:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot. I'll do my best not to let anyone down. Cheer, C628 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

This edit summary made me laugh. Been a busy day over there. Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, happens far too often. I'd just seen the Wikipedia article as a lead on Google News and was a little annoyed, to say the least. Cheers, C628 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey, it appears we have two articles on the same thing...this may be a tough situation. Merge or redirect? Tjc6 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

(Sorry to barge in here.)

If that's Plane Crash in India Kills at Least 160, it was mispublished, which I fixed by changing the {{publish}} to {{dupe}} — but I really wasn't expressing a preference by that, just doing something to kick it out of the "Articles mispublished" dead zone. --Pi zero (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've published your article. The other one will have to be merged instead. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 13:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

They're mostly identical, except for the last two paragraphs in yours; I'll merge those into the published one, than makes yours a redirect, does that work for you? C628 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. If there's anything else you want to add, feel free. Cheers, C628 (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am C628 and want the cloack Wikinews/C628

Does every wiki web have it, why dont u post direct link to it on talk? its shame nobody does it!

There's no need. There are three tabs: Article, Discussion/Talk, Opinions. You just have to use Opinions. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

u have no idea how good is to have comments, i dont have to worry about bein reverted, HOW COME ALL WIKI PAGES DONT HAVE IT?SHAME!

Thanks to the fact that certain 'crats are too lazy to read that you're re-admining, not reconfirming... you got your admin in a new extra-speedy timeline. So... uh... have fun? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This happened. I've added a warning to the Articles mispublished section of the Newsroom, guessing that might have been how it happened. --Pi zero (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, C628.

Thanks for reviewing and publishing the article, my first! The bit about it being "full of patrons" was sourced to http://blogs.pe.com/news/digest/2010/06/update-shooter-was-father-gran.html where the witness said "I saw two employees run out of the employee door and then I saw 8 or 10 people run out of the restaurant and across the street", but, meh. Sorry about the "breaking" thing. It wasn't meant to push it through a review ahead of other articles in the queue, just that at the moment the two who are still alive are in hospital in surgery. Best, Matthewedwards (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, no problem. The bit I couldn't find was that the family was specifically targeted; it was sort of implied in the sources, but I couldn't find anything where it specifically said that, so I didn't feel real happy about leaving it in...but yeah...no big deal, I think. And don't worry about the breaking thing; I don't like the template in any case, so I'm sort of biased against it in the first place. IMO, it's sort of misleading as it's very rare anyone ever bothers to update the breaking news articles, so saying "please refresh often for updates" or whatever is sort of silly. No worries, in any case. Cheers, C628 (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since moving pages post-publish is harmful, I will leave it there, but it is common in headlines to remove ands and replace with commas. WN:SG#Headlines: "Use comma, not 'and' or '&'." Also, you should really have noticed this oopsie upon reviewing. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please review this- THANKS!BKCW8 talk 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

And this one too - please and thank you =)BKCW8 talk 03:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Which paragraph can't you verify in this article? Tyrol5 (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

"If the tests do succeed, Suttles explained that engineers and scientists would evaluate the integrity of the cap and the risks of leaving it sealed. They would then come to a decision of whether to keep the well shut in or not. If there is a decision to reopen the cap, Suttles said that containment operations would resume. In this case, these operations would continue until the two relief wells are completed at the end of July or August. He also said that even if the cap remained closed, work on both relief wells would continue to ensure that "this well can never flow to surface again." If I recall correctly, it was added with New York Times source, but I didn't find the quote or anything there. My assumption was that the source had been changed in the day the article had been waiting for review, and the parts that backed that up had been removed. It happens a lot; the BBC is the worst, but nearly all news sites are guilty of it. C628 (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I had a Times article confirming this, but it appears that it has changed to an update by the times itself. I will see if I can find the exact article again. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In all honesty, I think that the article disappeared into thin air. I will rewrite the paragraph with information from the 'updated' Times article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was the second-to-last ¶, correct? Tyrol5 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I added additional info from the Times, you can take a look now. Here's hoping they don't 'update' the article again. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

It looks good to me now. The updating is definitely annoying, but it's something you eventually get used to. Cheers, C628 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article that you approved, forgot check the categories, i have put the categories, regards Shooke (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You may wish to examine User talk:Tony1, Wikinews talk:Style guide#Copy-edit, with particular attention to the timestamps. I believe you'll find I was, in fact, attempting to provide the apparently requisite instant gratification. - Amgine | ^t 02:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is "looks good to me" your opinion on the concern I raised at Talk:Deadly flooding in Pakistan kills hundreds#Ethics? If so I will remove the flag. (I take it you are aware that the article was written by a user on probation.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I reworded it, it was bit out of context and jumbled together, but I don't see a problem with quoting the person; my impression that since they've publicly spoken about it, there isn't anything wrong with using that quote. I'm not an expert on that sort of thing, though, so you might want to see if anyone else comments. C628 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Let's wait then, as there are few people active today. It was a great copy-edit, (by the way.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply