User talk:Ragettho: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikinews

Getting started as a contributor How to write an article Pick something current? Use two independent sources? Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask? Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template. [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

Welcome, Ragettho! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally. As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.   Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.

All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours. Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere. The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing. Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies Neutral point of view Cite sources Writing an article Content guide Style guide Reviewing articles

Places to go, people to meet Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion. There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved The Water Cooler The Latest News The Newsroom Articles for deletion Audio Wikinews Recent Changes

Write your first article for Wikinews! Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it! It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.

-- 14:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ragettho. You have new messages at User talk:Fetchcomms. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

—fetch·comms 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words about my edits reviewing articles on Wikinews. Most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. In addition to having occasionally contributed anonymously to Wikipedia and Wikinews, I'm also an editor for a blog that has a similar review process. Therefore I'm fully aware of how much work you had to put in just to clear the queue of pending articles that accumulated over the past few days. I'm also one who realizes that his work isn't necessarily as superb as he would like to think, so I always welcome the feedback. =P Ragettho (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I usually take my time to read them over, especially the older ones, over a day or so, and then review them all in one bunch. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ragettho. You have new messages at Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#new_category_on_royals. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

--Gryllida 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do you mind if I make some little changes to the article? I think it needs to convey that the evidence of lewd internet conduct came out in continuing disclosures of messages and photos over a few weeks, which he at first denied and then admitted to in drips and drabs as the evidence became clearer.

It has been noted elsewhere if he had just admitted his behavior in the beginning, that he might have been able to retain his seat. But he had clearly lied and equivocated from day one.

It seems that the porn star was just the last straw, and that the result would be the same, even if she had not stepped forth.

Also, I read in one source (not sure if it is listed in the article) that his wife of one year is very close to the Clintons and that they are furious with Weiner.

I doubt the marriage will last! Any bets? Mattisse (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now that I think about it, we have enough material for an in-depth article. Would you like to collaborate on the expansion? The article is unlikely to be reviewed in time for the 2 pm ET press conference anyway, so we'll have a lot of revisions to make within the next hour. So, I think we should pull the article (again), put in the edits you suggested, and elaborate more on the successive release of photos and the Clinton connection. We should not speculate too much on the marriage, though, since the press hasn't seemed to cover that too much. What do you think? Ragettho (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my computer crashed before I could answer you on my talk page. The article states that the lewd photo was accidentally posted on twitter. Is that a fact, or is that just what he said? (Got to rush off to hear the news conference.) Mattisse (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Per the comment below, I've listed the article for review, and we can add updates later on. Ragettho (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Kind of deep thought, imho, about trade-offs in trying to maximize the effectiveness of the Wikinews system. I was reminded of this by noticing you'd recently twice(?) pulled an article off the review queue to update it — but I don't mean to imply anything about that specifically. It's just that it reminded of this conundrum, and I thought I'd offer it to you so you could think about it too.

Back when the anti-Mubarak protests were going on in Egypt, we had an article waiting for review about them whose author kept pulling the article to update it. This was one of those times when the active reviewers were short on the large time needed for a full review (it is a massive job, after all), and each version of the article would sit around for about twelve hours and then get pulled before it could be reviewed. I myself had the experience, once during that time, of finally scraping together enough time for a review, spending a large part of that hard-won time, and having the article pulled out from under me. We ended up with no coverage of most of the unfolding events, one article about some events toward the end of the sequence, and a long gap (I think it was almost three days) when we didn't publish a single article about anything. The article-pulling that was obviously intended to cause us to publish very up-to-date information, instead only had the effect of preventing us from publishing all the versions that got pulled.

I've often wondered if we could have done better. If we could have, it would have been by (1) starting a new article instead of pulling an old one, and (2) writing each article so that it would remain a valid account of earlier events even if it didn't get published until after some later events had unfolded. --Pi zero (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice! If you're a US resident, then you might be aware that Weiner is supposed to hold a press conference any minute now. Would you recommend that I just submit the article for review immediately after the conference? We can add any updates to a new article. Ragettho (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Submitting right after the conference certainly sounds reasonable. You're immersed in the article, I'm not, of course; whether this technique can work here is something you'd know better than I. But there may well be a distinction between the sort of updates that can just be added to the article, and the sort that would call for a separate article.

Of course, there's also the danger that somebody will tag an article as "should be merged with such-and-such". (Sometimes you just can't win. :-)  I try to be helpful, but I surely don't have all the answers either. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

He did resign several minutes after 2 p.m. His wife was not beside him. His speech last 4 minutes according to CNN. He did not take questions. Can only find a blog so far that documents his speech.[1]. He apologized to his family (his father and mother for bringing him up with such good values!), his wife, his constituents, but not to the country, which CNN pointed out was where the damage was the worst, as representatives speaking in local areas feared giving press conferences about important things like jobs, etc., worried that questions about Weiner would be raised. Mattisse (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mattisse (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your message, but don't feel too bad - you're in good company making that mistake. Chasing down that error is one of the few things I do these days on WN, as a look at my contributions will prove! Best wishes, and happy editing. Bencherlite (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would you be up for becoming a reviewer? I'd be willing to support you. You seem to grasp the way the site works and you write well. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Really? I'm flattered. And I accept. :) Ragettho (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I nommed you at WN:FR/RFP. Good luck. :) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have promoted you to the Wikinews:Reviewer class, entrusting you with the ability 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

You are welcome to use {{User Wikinews reviewer}}.

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

Tyrol5 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I recommend also WN:Tips on reviewing articles (shameless plug :-). --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yay! Thank you :) Ragettho (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ragettho. You have new messages at WN:Water_cooler/proposals#Interview proposal for National Archives Wikipedian in Residence. You can remove this notice by removing {{replied}} from your talk page.

--Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I just realized that I was quoted in this article. You brought my quote about digital rights and sales of Ansel Adams images by institutions out of context. It comes off 1) out of context to my blog which is imperative to the quotation being understood 2) that I am making a blanket statement about organizational policy as a whole regarding image use at institutions 3) that I am representing Archives of American Art, when I was making this statement as an individual outside of the organization. This is causing quite an issue for my residency position and I have had to do lengthy explaining to a number of GLAMs (including my own organization and the Smithsonian as a whole) about my quotation being taken out of context. It would be ideal if my quotation could be removed or strictly placed into the context as stated on my blog regarding the marketability of Ansel Adams. I'd prefer the removal. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

• This is now largely resolved by taking a more representative quote and putting it in an appropriate context. I'm not sure what you wanted to say with the quote you selected; we shouldn't be making Wikimedians in Residence uncomfortable, or politicising the relationship with GLAM orgs. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm wondering, why did you think it wasn't working? In case the difficulty was with what it's supposed to do —  foreign=force  does three things. It guarantees that the link will always go to Wikipedia, even if a page were created on Wikinews with the target name. It adds the page to hidden Category:Pages with forced foreign links. And if you've selected the User interface gadget "Underline in green catorizable {{w}} links", it causes the forced link to be shown with a dashed underline. (I love that gadget; it makes the deep infrastructural purposes of {{w}} much easier to pursue.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks -- I had a general idea of what foreign=force did. But on the article itself (not the edit box), I kept seeing [[w:Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Wikipedian in Residence#{{{anchor}}}|Wikipedian in Residence]]. Did you not see this after you submitted your edit? Ragettho (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's disturbing.

• Do you still see this problem when you look at the preceding revision of the page?
• Do you see it when you look at either of the two force=foreign wikilinks that are still in the article? (The easy one to find is in the caption of the first picture.)

--Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I still see that problem in the preceding revision. And yes, I still see it in the two remaining instances. (I actually missed those!) I'm not sure what to do with those, since I'm assuming that you're not experiencing this problem. Ragettho (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Here's a pdf file you can take a look at Ragettho (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's extremely helpful, as it makes it very clear just what symptoms you're seeing. Also,

Good grief, what a mess.

I can tell some things about your set up, giving me a better idea what to scrutinize when re-dissecting the template code. I'm still not sure what I'm looking for, but then, considering how many hours I spent desk-checking and testing that code before deployment, it's kind of a given that if it was something I'd naturually think of, it wouldn't be there. (Hopefully, it is there; I'd far rather have made a stupid mistake in the code than have the problem be something much harder to track down.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should be fixed now. (Hurray! I'd done something incredibly stupid!) --Pi zero (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's great! :) Now why did I experience these problems, and not you? Ragettho (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

When linking to Wikipedia, {{w}} acts like w:Template:Sec link auto, linking to the secure server iff used from the secure server. The bug was in code that only runs on the insecure server. --Pi zero (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

oh ok... thanks for the clarification! I'm glad that there weren't any issues on my end. 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for publishing Hidden treasure worth billions of dollars discovered in Indian temple. It's very much appreciated. Mattisse (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. It's an interesting article! Ragettho (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please don't do it again. Bencherlite (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

First of all, today is Tuesday, not Wednesday. Wednesday is tomorrow. Sunday was two days ago. In any case, the two day gap is clearly unacceptable. I'm pretty sure I tried revising the text to shorten the lead and remove the time-sensitive phrasing at that time, but obviously not all of my edits went through. I'll look into the matter further... I think I still need to figure out how the "Make lead" tool works, since it has a lot of buttons that I simply haven't figured out completely yet. Ragettho (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, we work by UTC around here (check the timestamp in my message if nothing else), so I was right and you're wrong about the day of the week on Wikinews, whatever day it is/was for you personally wherever you happen to live. Not that this is any excuse, as you go on to accept. And this confusion, by the way, is another reason not to use "today", "yesterday" or similar words on the front page. As for sorting out "make lead", it offers a default setting of the first one or two sentences of the article which you can then edit before pressing the button marked "Save as lead [4]". It really is quite simple, and I'm surprised it's causing you so many problems. In any case, if you're uncertain, check the main page after you've made the lead article and see if it looks the way that you expected. If it doesn't, go to {{Lead article 1}} (or 2, etc) and edit it directly. Yours, Bencherlite (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to UTC, it's still Tuesday for the next two hours.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────┘
Ragettho — If you scroll down the WN:ML page below even the sample of what the lead will (approximately) look like, in the lower left-hand corner there is an edit buffer that contains the proposed content for the selected lead template. The "make lead" button causes the sample display to be updated to reflect whatever edits you've made to that buffer.

I think I'd been using makelead for more than half a year before I noticed that edit buffer was there. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for getting my days of the week confused even using UTC - I plead lack of sleep due to a very new baby in the house... I'm not even sure what month it is some days... Bencherlite (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. Congrats on the new baby... I've heard it's a very exhausting yet rewarding experience. And get off the computer! I'm glad that you've found the time to contribute here, but Wikinews is hardly a place for relaxation. =P Ragettho (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Would review my article? :) Stapler80 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

You'd asked about creating such a category, what to call it, and whether it should be split between Health and Category:Culture and entertainment.

• The part of this that would go under Health seems tolerably straightforward, but not the part that would go under Culture and entertainment. It's a very different situation from Category:Royalty, where the inclusion criterion for the smaller category was essentially concrete, regardless of top-level category(-ies).
• One solution would be to omit the Culture-and-entertainment part of it, and create a category strictly under Category:Health. Perhaps one could call it  Category:Sexual health.
• A conceivable alternative might be to draft a usage note (field of {{topic cat}}) articulating a clear straightforward inclusion criterion for the Culture-and-entertainment stuff. I don't see how to do it, but that's just me. The field is there for this sort of thing.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message — I had almost forgotten about this! Maybe we could have an overarching category called "Sex", and use subcategories called "Sex crimes", "Sexual health", and "Sex in culture"? It's just an idea; I, too, am already having a hard time figuring out how the categorization would work. The problem is that a sex category could conceivably have articles that belong in most, if not all, of the top-level categories. (e.g. "sex education" fits in "education", "pornography" fits in "culture and entertainment", "prostitution" fits in "crime and law" and/or "economy and business", etc.) Ragettho (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I gave the wrong instructions, a while back, when trying to help you with how to modify the text before submitting. For this, you don't want the "Make lead" button above the preview, because that wipes out any manual changes to the buffer in the lower left; rather, the "Refresh preview" button, below the preview on the right.

I was reminded of this recently when I got tangled up by it myself. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind next time I use ML. Ragettho (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for doing that. I didn't realize you had, so I added more from a more accessible source. These now need reviewing. Perhaps you could turn down those reviews of mine, as they are unnecessary now. Sorry for being so negligent and not reviewing "Recent changes" more carefully. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)Reply