I don't know if it was you or Pi, but please don't use Wikipedia deletion codes; by and large people here don't know them. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I used it in an edit summary by accident, I think. fetch·comms 04:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply



The unpublished one was a update of the story entirely, stating what further developments occurred and who replaced Kopra on the mission. Are you suggesting that I should add the additional information to the published article, or is this just a misunderstanding? Thanks, Tyrol5 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Comment: Misunderstanding or not, it's now more than 24 hours since the first story was published, so too late for substantive changes to it. I've undone the redirect. --Pi zero (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC))Reply
Ah, I see. It was just a misunderstanding; I thought a page move got botched or something. fetch·comms 16:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply



I am not angry, but I was wondering why my article was redirected to yours? Was there some reason why your article was chosen to report on this event over mine? Just wondering... Cheers... Mìthrandir (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mine was created earlier than yours. I thought I had saved a full version last night, but evidently I did not, and I have just re-finished writing it. I think usually, if someone already started an article, just build on that one rather than start a new one. Cheers, fetch·comms 19:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
@Míthrandir: If you want, I can merge your work with Fetchcomms' so the content remains in only one page? Diego Grez return fire 19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Eh, a tad late for that. I just finished writing it! Of course, additions are welcome, but I don't know how much can be saved. fetch·comms 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, I mean, 'historymerging' the content :) Diego Grez return fire 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's no need, though; nothing was in violation of copyright or whatnot. fetch·comms 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Your article had not been created (to my knowledge) when I wrote mine. I didn't know someone had already written an article. Mìthrandir (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fetchcomms article was first (22:57, 15 Feb. 2011), your's was created on (2:22, 16 Feb. 2011); so fetchcomms was first. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 20:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
They're always listed in the Newsroom :) fetch·comms 22:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply



Yep! I was just trying to get it out as fast as possible, w/o review fail... Saw it now. - Amgine | t 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! :) fetch·comms 17:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: Florida Woman addicted to eating furniture


No, I didn't bother to read the sources, if it was genuine, maybe you should avoid comments like "Happy April Fools day everybody" being stuck in the edit summary. If it's genuine, say so on a day like this. Shit happens. BarkingFish (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are doubts about newsworthiness on the article talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
BarkingFish, it was meant in good humor. We have Category:Wackynews, after all. fetch·comms 03:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wackynews is a joke, shouldn't be here, and I will delete on sight any April Fools stuff. We're a proper news site - not a Red top :) BarkingFish (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Eh, no harm in writing about weird stories that are actually news, I think. No The Onion stuff, obviously. fetch·comms 03:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

US government shutdown averted in last-minute deal


Meant as constructive criticism — This edit should not have been self-sighted. The edit itself was meant as a factual alteration, so an independent fact check was in order. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I had originally put that in there when starting the article, but forgot to take it out because it wasn't clearly in the sources—I was only trying to correct my own factual inaccuracy/oversight; didn't realize I had to let someone else sight that, too. Sorry, fetch·comms 01:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Reply



Thanks for passing Yao JiaXin, murderer of road traffic incident casualty, sentenced. I tried to fix it up so as to encourage the editor to continue. He put on his user page User:Ajun685: "I'm a Chinese, from Anhui province, China, where the well-known Yellow Mountain is located. Wish to communicate with the world!"

That grabbed at my heart strings so I tried to get the article published. So thank you copy editing it and publishing it. Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yay! fetch·comms 03:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
and thanks for ruining my Apple story with amateur hour editing! I really appreciate you crapping on my work! Tadpole256 (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Common Sense Editing


I posted the following on my own talk page as well, hopefully everyone can benefit. Please don't take it personally. I am sure you've done some fine work here, and we are all prone to bad days, we just have to strive to get better. So with that in mind I offer you the following advice, hope it helps.

I would encourage everyone here to use a modicum of common sense prior to editing an article. Clearly, we can all see typos & mis-spellings. Those should be fixed quickly, and you need not take a jab at the author for it, unless of course you have never made a mistake yourself. But when it comes to completely re-wording and re-writing an article, you should always have the decency and respect for your fellow writers to at least read some sources, and educate yourself on the subject prior to destroying the work of another. I am not asking you to earn a Ph.D. in a subject, but at least familiarize yourself with a subject. If you are going to write about a computer, find out something about that computer, visit the manufacturer's web site, get some knowledge, otherwise your slap-dash edits will simply make you appear to be an ignoramus to anyone who actually knows something about the subject.

If there is any other way I can be of assistance, please feel free to let me know. I am happy to help. I am more than willing to use my experience to try to make this site the best it can be, and to identify short-comings. I will always try to offer a proposed solution also, in the military you never bring up a problem without a proposed solution. So with that in mind, please don't hesitate to ask for help, guidance or a little mentorship, we are all in this together, and we will all grow and get better together. I am here to help. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What you seem to be missing is that fact that sources need to say everything. Just because any iPhone owner might know [some random fact], does not mean we can add it to the article. We must have a source. I own an iPad and I am quite familiar with the subject. However, I am also familiar with Wikinews' policies, as well as the sources. The sources don't state any such thing, and unless you are going to claim yourself as a source (original reporting) or cite Apple's website (neither of which you did before re-adding the offending material), it does not meet Wikinews' standards. If you are going to write on Wikinews, why don't you familiarize yourself with Wikinews' policies and guidelines before making ludicrous accusations and implying that I'm the one at fault?
You said, "If you are going to write about a computer, find out something about that computer, visit the manufacturer's web site, get some knowledge, otherwise your slap-dash edits will simply make you appear to be an ignoramus to anyone who actually knows something about the subject." Firstly, be glad I'm not the whiny civility police type, or I'd have no blocked for insinuating I'm an ignoramus. Secondly, reading the manufacturer's website does nothing unless you cite it as a source. Does that make sense to you? It's written out in Wikinews:Cite sources: "every piece of information in a Wikinews article must be referenced and verifiable". I'd encourage you to read that entire page, it might clear things up.
If you think I'm a dumbass or a bad journalist or a crappy writer, say it to my face. I'll ensure you won't be blocked for that. But if you think I'm the one needing mentorship, you need to learn something about how Wikinews works, and what Wikinews' standards and requirements are. I'm not a fucking baby. Don't treat me like I need help around here—I know what I'm doing because I've actually read the policies. You know what? If I had not rewritten the article, it would have failed the review. Simple as that. When it comes to insulting another user's work, you should always have the decency and respect for your fellow writers to at least read some policies before prior to destroying the work or another. Unless, of course, you wanted that article to fail. So conducive to helping this site grow. I was about to review that article, but I saw the glaring issues, and rectified them—your reverts only slowed down the review process.
If you want to call my writing amateur, then I suppose Wikinews is an amateur news site. Oh wait—it is! It's also a collaborative site, which means you don't own the page, so anyone (such as moi) can go and edit it. Calling others' writing "amateur", hmmm—does that seem collaborative?
You're an adult. I don't care if you don't know the policies yet, because you're still fairly new and you can (must) learn them. But if you want to imply that my writing is crap, then you can either tell it to my face or not say it at all. The most aggravating part is when someone who is wrong thinks they're right and then proceeds to lord it over the person who is wrong. I know what the fuck I'm doing, and I'm not sure what mistakes I've made (other than bothering to save that article). You've made it clear that you don't. If you need mentorship, I'd be glad to help, but I think my journalism skills just aren't up to par, so I won't too sad if you choose someone else.
You were in the US Navy, right? I assume you're not going to cry over a silly article. But, please, read the policies, first. Wikinews isn't run like every other news site. By the way, I read this and I think most users would agree, but efforts at some "reforms" haven't really made progress. Some comments:
  • "The style guide, while well written, and well intended however, is not always evenly enforced by the reviewers / admins." – Agreed, and it's unfortunate, because inconsistencies make us look unprofessional. Poorly-copyedited material also makes us look unprofessional. I wish every reviewer would copyedit an article before publishing it, but it seems not every one does that.
  • "WikiNews has allowed itself to slip into a collection of stories you read yesterday." – We simply don't have enough active users. The NYT has hundreds of people writing stories, revising stories, updating stories, taking photos, shooting videos, conducting interviews, calling people, emailing people, etc., etc. This doesn't even account for its op-ed writers and editorial team. Wikinews has ... ~20–25, there's almost no focus on photography/videography (because everyone telecommutes), only a fraction of those users conduct interviews or do original reporting, there are no "human interest" stories, and there's no pay. Wikinews is a hobby, and a hobby only. Until we get a user base even a fourth of Wikipedia's, we won't be able to do anything major. Why do we have no such user base? Because everyone thinks Wikinews is full of rude, mean, cliquey users. The truth is, they do something wrong, get criticized, and run off in tears. Oh, and the cliquey Wikinewsies don't get punished. Instead of running off, they should learn the ropes/policies/etc. and keep writing. But obviously, they don't care enough about writing news articles to grow a thicker skin. And Wikinews doesn't care enough about civility to get rid of the rude old-timers.
  • "Good articles, breaking news, is often allowed to languish for days in the “water cooler”, where articles wait to be reviewed before they are published." – No, the Water cooler is for discussions. Articles wait in the Newsroom. Just like in a real office, you don't put important documents on the water cooler, but on someone's desk/inbox.
  • "There are a small group of users who have been dedicated to the site for a long period of time, who seem to be intensely critical of the submissions of any newcomers. These people have established a culture of perfectionism at WikiNews that causes news to languish and die there." – Being written by a new user doesn't exempt an article from Wikinews' quality standards. The reason articles are left behind is because people are too lazy to give them a good copyedit, fix them up, etc. I tried to do that with the Apple article and look where that got me. I'm certainly not going to bother fixing an article again. And I only did the Apple one because I'm interested in tech news.
  • "stories are allowed to sit in the review process for days while people nit-pick the placement of commas" – Again, if we had more users, both problems would be solved. Reviewers are expected to copyedit articles right before publication. Because copyediting poorly written articles is tedious and takes a long time, well-written articles usually get reviewed faster.
  • "no one goes to a wiki of any kind expecting a perfectly polished product" – Herein lies the crux: why on earth are we using a wiki as a news site? When one goes to Wikipedia, rarely does one expect a polished article. But Wikinews' standards are entirely different; that's why there's a "formal" review process. We do expect (and need, or else Google News would not list our articles) polished content.
  • By the way, this violates the terms of the CC-BY-2.5. As not all of it seems to have been written by you, attribution is required, or the article constitutes a violation of copyright.
At any rate, I am here to help, too. If you need anything, just holla. Regards, fetch·comms 23:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What happened?


Hi, I didn't know you were editing Tornado forces closure of St. Louis, Missouri airport and when I went to save my edits I got the [1]

I thought it was a vandal so I pasted my edit over it. Hope I didn't do the wrong thing. I'm very sorry if I did. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I'm in the middle of rewriting it because there have been some updates of late. I was planning to do some OR this morning (caught a live stream of the press conference), but didn't have time, and then the governor said something in the afternoon, but I was out, and so on. I'll just add a few updates, if that's OK with you. Cheers, fetch·comms 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Please feel free to continue! I was just trying to fix it up as it was a mewbie's article that failed. I hate to see that so I was trying to help out. But I didn't look for updates and I am sure you would do a better job. (I'm tired now anyway and about to get into bed!) Regards, Mattisse (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bust water main article


Thanks for reviewing this, and giving positive feedback on the OR.

What it proved was how easy that can be. This happened less than three miles from where I live, I could hop on a bus there, get some snaps, and chat to a couple of locals. Didn't even need to declare myself being a journalist - the information about phones being out, and the road closure, was volunteered freely just by saying: "Hi, bet you had fun this morning with the bust water pipe". --Brian McNeil / talk 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I just wish my city was more interesting ... sigh. The biggest news I've witnessed recently is some old restaurant closing, and I never even ate there before :P. fetch·comms 20:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply



Please review the surf article! It wasn't easy to take those photographs (the manner I got to Punta de Lobos, I mean :P) I just don't want it to be wasted. Thank you in advance! アンパロ Io ti odio! 22:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fetch! I need your help once again! Can you please review the new Chile article please? It's on the review queue. Thank you again! アンパロ Io ti odio! 23:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

UChicago library power outage


Dear Fetchcomms, Thanks for reviewing my article, University of Chicago's Mansueto Library suffers power outage. I had a great time writing this original report, and I hope to write similar stories in the future! I just have a quick question about your "newsworthiness" policy. What was your impression of the newsworthiness of the article? Obviously you passed it as such, but someone raised concerns about it in the "comments" page, so I'm wondering whether I should have made it clearer as I wrote the story why I thought it was newsworthy. Perhaps I should have emphasized in the article that the library was only two weeks old, or that Mansueto is part of a very large, world-class research institution? I look forward to your thoughts. Ragettho (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews allows smaller-scale (local) stories, although some people think that we should be focusing on major (international) news, first. That's actually a bit of a problem; we don't have enough writers, so not every major news event is covered. But that's only one aspect of newsworthiness (just don't write about your pet cat dying or something). Wikinews only allows stories on events that happened within the past three days (otherwise, the news is "stale"). There's a little essay someone wrote about newsworthiness at Wikinews:Newsworthiness. But if I were you, I wouldn't really worry—if you wanted, you could write exclusively about UChicago and as along as it was somewhat important, there probably wouldn't be an issue. Original reporting is a Good Thing™ and its hard for volunteers to get access to information for major stories. But if you'd like to write about the bigger topics, go right ahead! fetch·comms 19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your helpful comments. I have another quick question, if you don't mind. Does original photography, by itself, constitute original reporting? Or would I have to contribute original text for the story to be considered original? Ragettho (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, I suppose original photography is original reporting as photojournalism, but it's not enough for story by itself (some text still has to be there). But for text original reporting, you have to put all your notes on the article's talk page. So if you only took some photos, you don't need to add {{original reporting}} to the article's "Sources" section, but if you are adding text info that based on your own accounts, then you do. fetch·comms 21:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

reviewer stuff, thanks


Hey Fetchcomms. I appreciate very much the vote of confidence you gave me on my reviewer nomination. Moreover, I'd like to thank you further for the encouragement you've given me thus far — especially after I wrote my first OR piece on the UChicago library power outage. (though TBH in hindsight the article seems rather silly right now :/) I look forward to working with you! :) Ragettho (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



Hi:).Wifione (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

What the f**k?

You just published an incredibly stale article. With a glaring date error in the lede, and a freaking category redlink. I hope (against hope) you checked it very carefully for copyvios, as the author has been struggling with that.

What the hell happened?? --Pi zero (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Something went awry, somehow. Since the list of possible causes ranges from innocent to really dire, I've taken the very cautious measure of temporarily toggling your review bit, till the more dire possibilities have been ruled out.
What the hell happened? --Pi zero (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
(Thanks for catching those SDs, btw. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
This sort of overreaction is exactly why I left Wikinews—and I published the article thinking that it was actually on the OpenGlobe citizen journalism site where I am currently active rather than on this site. I don't need the reviewer bit back; I only came back to check for some ideas on stories (which is how I got tagged those articles for deletion), as well as if there were any new admins/reviewers/etc.; I then forgot which site I was on because the skins are the same. There were also several Middle Eastern stories on OpenGlobe needing review about the same time that I reviewed the WN article, so I probably didn't notice which was which. The OpenGlobe policies are also more lenient on staleness, so I didn't think of that, although the relative date error in the first sentence was an oversight because I had just finished writing a story about an event that happened today.
I don't care about the Arab League article and I don't care about Wikinews. I don't care that this article was "stale" because I think the WN policy on staleness is useless due to a lack of reviewers. I never really liked the reviewing policy here anyway, and toward the end of my active time on this site I rubber-stamped a few articles to see if anyone would notice (no one did, although I did check the facts just in case there were major errors or misrepresentations, which there weren't). The idea of reviewers here is based on good faith (and not necessarily good intentions) but your reaction to my publication of the Arab League article seems to contradict that. What if my account had been hacked? Or if I suddenly decided to go rogue? Would you request a checkuser if I didn't reply? Would I be blocked? Would you bother to unsight the article? I mean, if you're so concerned about staleness, then delete the article, FFS. Otherwise, why bother complaining? Complaining doesn't solve the issue of the stale article being accidentally published. Unpublishing is the obvious solution.
Wikinews' processes might be based around good intentions on paper but it's really only about good faith in the end. And there no longer is any. Wikinews has been turned into a horribly ineffective and inefficient corporation, one that is dying and pitiable.
Wikinews has no future unless it loosens up. There is no way that an independent citizen journalism site will ever be thought of as "reliable" or get widespread recognition. Never. I gave up hoping that a month after I started actively editing here. Bureaucratic rules and nonsense requirements stifle content but push toward an utterly unrealistic (and unrealized) goal. If we don't embrace a more informal newsbloggy style, then there's really no point. I hope OpenGlobe will become at least a big name in citizen journalism. If it too becomes weighed down by bureaucracy, which I still fear at this early stage, then I will start my own blog and wait to see if I birth a kottke.org or a daringfireball.net or a boingboing.net. All of which, may I point out, are much more influential and successful than Wikinews. And much more informational and relevant. This isn't to say that collaboration is our enemy. We just don't need rules to write the news. The goal is to deliver neutral news. (Actually, I think neutrality usually makes for an uninteresting read. If we're just like a wire service, except slower and less broad in coverage, what are we trying to achieve? A place to waste the WMF's resources by collecting second-rate and outdated sentences?)
This current model isn't working. So I made a mistake and I published something that was "stale". So what? Did I kill a server kitty in the process? Or are we still worried about Wikinews' "reputation"? This site is always lots of talk and never any action. You want to retain writers? Stop stories from going stale. That means more reviewers—or loosening the requirements on what stories are allowed.
Sorry to rant on like this, but it seemed like a good opportunity. I'm not frustrated by you, just the general "Wikinews way" mindset. By the way, feel free to add a wiki-obit to Wikinews:Departure lounge. I'm too lazy.
A più tardi, fetch·comms 05:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply