User talk:Brian McNeil/Archive 16

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Pi zero in topic Have them all shot


Foolishly, I'm planning to try and implement a bot running on

Please post comments, or suggestions, here or on relevant talk sub-pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering, what functionality are you looking to implement that doesn't already exist in pre-existing bots? Bawolff 21:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • For the most part, I want to get a better understanding of php. I also want to pull data over to Wikinewsie in a more managed and timely fashion (instead of the 'fly' live mirror for latest news). Lastly, there's numerous bots with part of the functionality I'd like, so I want to pull it all into one bot. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do the CU

I understand that you don't like me. But what does this mean?

Well, see WN:NOT, you're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

What have I done that is in WN:NOT? What do you mean "you're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy." Why are you treating me this way? Mattisse (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question about submitted story, "Launceston Pulp Mill"

Hello Brian,

Thank you for taking the time to review my submitted news story. I was aware of the time elapse between the reports and date of submission, however was of the oppinion that the newsworthiness came from the timeliness, related to the project recently being given the go-ahead.

The sources may have been old, but I have no reason to suspect that the information in them is incorrect. Is there any way of a compromise here?



Dmessie (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

re Journalism students

Hi Brian,

The University of Wollongong in Australia has begun using Wikinews as a training tool for journalism students as of this year, so if there seems like a lot of us joining up in recent times, that's why.

That said, I doubt I'm alone in having really enjoyed the writing and editing process with Wikinews - the feedback we receive has been very helpful at times. I imagine some of us will stay on once our assignments are completed.

All the best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cropje (talkcontribs)

  • Good to hear, and one of your classmates emailed me regarding that too. This was exactly what I'd hoped would be the longer-term result of the interview I gave to the Reuters Institute. What you are going to need to get to grips with are some of the quirks of using MediaWiki as a Content Management System - you'll need to code in links to appropriate topics and categorise articles. Even if none of you stick around after your course ends, I'd welcome feedback. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Review Request


I am only posting this on your talk page because these stories need a quick and fair review. I was hoping you might have the time to take a look at the following two stories:

Sixteen killed in Marrakech bomb blast

Deadly tornadoes rip through southern US, killing close to 300 - Matisses story

Thanks for your help. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

re lead article

The German wikinews, which scooped us on Deadly tornadoes rip through southern US, killing close to 300, has it as the lead article Tornados in USA: Zahl der Todesopfer auf über 300 gestiegen Mattisse (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dispute resolution

I was suggested to me that I file a Wikinews:Dispute resolution with you because of the check user you filed against me.[1]

I have ceased to write anymore articles, or to work on the articles of others. If you have "off wiki" information about me that justifies your filing a check user on me, please disclose it to me so I can resolve your concerns. If you do not want me to edit here, please participate in Dispute resolution so I can understand why you felt you had to humiliate me by filing a check user with no evidence. I understand that you do not like my article writing, but I was under the impression that wikinews wanted articles writers. Thank you, Mattisse (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • The checkuser was filed in response to your over-reactionary challenge that I do so when sockpuppetting elsewhere was brought to my attention as a cause for concern by another user. No, I'm not naming that user - you similarly badgered them, and utterly misinterpreted their remarks. Go ahead and raise dispute resolution if you so wish; I can, grudgingly, then spend a few hours this weekend picking apart your interactions with myself and others where you completely misinterpret things. Otherwise, let things lie and don't provoke further drama.
This is, I expect, to be my final response to yourself on my user page regarding this issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Critical information for anyone sucked into this "nonsense"
This diff shows two edits to Mattisse's talk page; one by myself, and a tart response which provoked me to file the CU request.
I believe, that in response to the remark "...In fact, I appeal to you to do a checkuser. ..." is perfectly reasonable grounds for me to have made the request.
Would someone with considerably more patience to exhaust than myself please draw diagrams, explain in words of one syllable, or whatever else is required to stop this user from causing needless disruption? --Brian McNeil / talk 21:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Article wizard

You were saying you'd been interested in an article wizard. I'd be interested in how you'd envision that working. The basic operational characteristic of en.wp's article wizard is, from all I can see, that through a series of pages the user answers a series of multiple choice questions: the only way the wizard can "remember" previous answers is by selecting one of several next pages. That's one page for each possible combination of answers-given-so-far. Do you think we can put together something worthwhile for Wikinews that way? If so, I'm game to try. The alternative involves javascript (as I noted on the cooler thread). --Pi zero (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • If it needs js, so be it. The 'guided' process should, I think, be: Have you read at least two independent sources? (Input them). Do you know our headline SG rules? (pick a title) Do you know what a lede is? (write it) Than, a description of inverse-pyramid and freedom to complete the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


Please try to avoid anything related to Mattisse, other contributors will be looking into it since it was already brought to dispute resolution. It may take a while. Thanks, Gryllida 00:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I certainly would like to; but, I cannot stand idly by whilst a child denigrates me in such a churlish manner. I have, with some thought, posted a response to xyr paranoid 'conspiracy-theory' type litany of alleged misdemeanours. I fully expect the current badgering of all-and-sundry to prejudice the community against xe, which would not be the outcome I would prefer.
Sadly, my technical efforts to pinpoint, and prove, where xe has been meatpuppetted have - as yet - borne no fruit. It would be a colossal waste of the community's time to have database dumps analysed to prove that xe is being manipulated by, or collaborating with, others who have "issues" with myself. I am 90%+ confident this is the case, and appropriate diffs will prove such to the community's satisfaction. If I am forced to waste the time digging up such data, I will; those involved in such covert collaboration can rely on their imagination for the community's reaction to exposure of orchestrated disruption. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Per repeat "toys-out-the-pram", I will spend some of my time off going through a database dump with a fine-tooth-comb to prove meatpuppetting. Given I work 40+ hours per week, and have commute-time on top of this, it may take quite some time to pinpoint the relevant edits. Yes, I view such as a colossal waste of time; but, I can't let this idiocy stand – even if I have to supervise a couple of firing squads. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Brian, do you have some reason to doubt the indications on Mattisse's en.wp talk that she is somewhere in the neighborhood of twice your age? (Before you cite the Wizard of Oz allusion, I should remark that my impression at the time was, she didn't know why you would make that allusion.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any issues with this, let's just work at the newsroom and make some progress there.. Gryllida 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

See also Gryllida 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Pi zero, when someone acts highly immaturely online, I assume such. Gryllida, assuming this user is happy to cease a clear smear campaign against me I will, as stated, review xyr contributions without prejudice. As far as I am concerned, I am not the one with a persecution complex. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

This means, be polite, open-minded, and courteous *even if you think others are not*. Give a good example. See The Catalysts Philosophy - I think it applies here very well. Namely, in some cases, it is more mature to leave the other side in peace instead of persuading them that they are wrong. It is not always necessary, while can cause a considerate amount of efforts spend towards no or little result... Writing or reviewing a couple of news could turn out to be a more rewarding task. Gryllida 07:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • I am happy to step back and let the community provide feedback based on what has - to date - been posted on the dispute resolution page. However, if RC fills up, again, with all-and-sundry's talk pages being spammed with, "Brian's sooo mean and nasty to me!", or considerably more perceived slights based on a lack of reading comprehension are added to the WN:DISPUTE, I will request an uninvolved administrator block Mattisse for disruption. I write here under my real name, that is my photograph on my userpage; I will not stand idly by and be libelled by a pseudonym. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, if you see any disruptive behavior, please report it. Thank you, Brian McNeil, for your understanding here and a competent, timely decision to step back. Cheers, Gryllida 09:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed [2] and [3]. It may be a good idea to avoid reverts like that in the future and provide a balanced response instead. It doesn't have to be long but it being competent can help. Gryllida 04:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Oh, yes that. I'd become completely sick and tired of being badgered with questions, and my answers being completely misunderstood - or utterly misconstrued. I left a clear, blunt, note I would remove any, and all, comments here from Mattisse. I'd come to the conclusion that any remark relating to xyr contributions anywhere was a clear invite to play as-if my talk page were xyr sandbox. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


Please watch Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#Gryllida_and_the_community and then you can delete this section if you like. Gryllida 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


<Mutters a random greeting>. Can I just ask - is 'dispute resolution' became your middle name? :P Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

DR between parties Brian McNeil and Mattisse

Noting that one party has withdrawn from commenting, and there being nothing further do-able at the DR between yourselves, I've closed it on the understanding it may be reopened in the future, should further issues arise. I've also noted (per Mattisse), that there is consent to an interaction ban for at least a month, so I'd ask you both to just avoid each other as best as you can for now, please. Thank you for your understanding and co-operation. BarkingFish (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Duly noted. However, I would add that earlier today I took the time to review xyr history In The Other Place. That was somewhat concerning; we've other users on here who've had a chequered history on Wikipedia; but, I doubt even Diego had a four-year history of sockpuppetting, threatening to resign, then doing so repeatedly. I would like my concern noted that our small community has not the time to deal with needless, irrational, dramatics. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

can u pls help me publish an article

my page simply kailawesome ws deleted,,,i m nt able to understand wiki.....its about my movi...pls do some thing n help me publish this article

Re: Failing Reviews

My bad. My aim was to provide direct (and timely) feedback in the form of a review but was a bit rushed at the time, so I wasn't able to make the changes myself, which I would have preferred to do. Calebrw (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


PLEASE,REMAKE THAT PAGE AUTOMATICLY!!!That was a project,not SPAM,not NOTHING,a PROJECT,that makes the Wikiuniverse BETTER!!!THAT PAGE WASN'T DELETED ON COMMONS,WHY YOU DELETED IT??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hungaricus Cyclus (talkcontribs)

  • Eh, no. SHAN'T! As stated on your talk page, go argue for whatever it is on the water cooler. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • As far as I can make out, it's a meatball thing. I'd personally have no objection to it if it wasn't as malformed (perhaps a {{DR}} would have been the best route?) — μchip08 10:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Hungaricus, yelling at us won't make the blindest bit of difference. You don't just dump it on us and expect it to stay, you propose it; you ask, we discuss, we decide. It wouldn't hurt you to cap down, be polite and sort it out with us in a civil manner, instead of turning up all guns blazing like you're on a mission either. As Brian said, go to the Water cooler. Ask, instead of ordering us. BarkingFish (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Hungaricus Cyclus, sorry if you don't find the deletion appropriate. You may want to take a look at Wikinews:Undeletion_requests if you want to challenge the deletion. Thank you. --Gryllida (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • The Wikinews:Water cooler is the place where you can ask if you want community opinion before filing the actual undeletion request. It's not uncommon for articles authors comment at the Cooler instead of filing the request directly since their view may be biased. However I think that the undeletion would be warranted so I have to point you to the undeletion requests page; --Gryllida (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • it may also be worth trying to just re-create the page, since it's easier. --Gryllida (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Simply recreating the page would be disruptive behavior. --Pi zero (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
"It is almost always better to write a new article than to attempt to undelete an article which was deleted through the Deletion request process: it will be faster, more timely, and can be written to take into account the concerns of the community which led to its being deleted in the first place." [1]. That probably only applies to pages deleted via DR, I'm not sure whether it's ok here or not. --Gryllida (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
It applies to articles. Also, note "write" and "new". It does not advise recreation of anything. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't mean recreation with the same content indeed. This point is valid. --Gryllida (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

What, exactly, is the point of the page I deleted? And, why has my talk page been turned into an impromptu water-cooler over this? Take it there, invite wider input, and explain what the daft bus stop is for! <mutters darkly about trams> --Brian McNeil / talk 12:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

In England and Wales

I think you're right yet, despite this, the BBC, ITV and Sky have all identified him. They are all English sources. Does that mean they're in comtempt of court? Also, I don't think the super-injunction applies outside of England and Wales. Therefore, I can get away with it because this doesn't apply in Scotland.

If you don't mind, could you please review British MP identifies injunction footballer in Parliament? I would be grateful for your cooperation. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 06:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

UOW Student

Hey there My user name is crm644 and I have just written the article . Upon submitting it I realised that I was not a member of the UOW page on Wikinews and I was wondering if there is any chance of getting moved to that group? I thought I would ask you as Dr Blackall informed us that he was corresponding with you regarding our projects. This website is quite confusing to a new member! Thanks, Crm644 (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • You've done better than most, you correctly signed your message. To add yourself to the group, add [[Category:UoW student]] to your userpage. For the article, add [[Category:UoW 2011 student work]]. From some of my exchanges with David, I'd love to be a fly-on-the wall at the next few lectures where Wikinews is brought up. I doubt Prof Blackall would be as blunt as myself (I'm notorious for it); but, some submissions are such that, for final-year students, I'd be suggesting some invest time learning to say "would you like fries with that?". (I've not looked at your submission, so this is a purely generalised comment). --Brian McNeil / talk 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


Thanks so much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. p.s. In response to your comment in recieving the award, I'm a girl not a guy! ;)

Crm644 (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


Just found [4] and [5]. See here "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user.". How ridiculous it may seem, we have to let people do whatever they like there. That's a funny observation, though! Gryllida 01:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's not a warning. Can you please let the user have peace at this talk page? They were a newbie and don't know how to verify efficiently yet, and had problems with finding the supporting quote. Rather than magnifying their frustration caused by consequent article archival and denial of that the article is biased, we could apologise for all the mess of personal opinions on his behavior, which are just something they need to learn like I see from the conversation. Even if they take it longer than they should, it's in no way a reason for open criticism of their genuine POV concern or underscoring their failures, which they in most cases see themselves regardless of whether they admit that. Thank you. Gryllida 10:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Xe can have peace, they've irritated two bureaucrats and an administrator to the extent they drew charges of trolling. Ozdaren would've edited the page, and been automatically given a great big warning that it was past the window of opportunity for substantive changes. Since xe went ahead regardless, took extreme umbrage at being reverted, and vowed to edit war, xe was deservedly criticised. This is not Wikipedia, and I sincerely doubt xe has actually realised how fundamentally different a project Wikinews is. Per my suggestion on the talk page for that article, BloodRedSandman placed the {{Howdy}} template on xyr talk page; xe, curtly, deleted it again – apparently read it all a year ago (actually, had a far, far older welcome template with less information).
If you wish to attempt to further Ozdaren's understanding of Wikinews, please, be my guest. But, don't cite Wikipedia policy (as done above regarding user talk pages). Were xe to, again, remove an entire paragraph from a reviewed, and published, article, xe would – again – find conflict with established contributors a probable outcome. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply


[6] isn't a particularly successful move in regards to presenting Wikinews as a polite, civil community. Please change the message. Gryllida 11:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually just replaced content with "{{subst:Stop2}} ~~~~". You may wish to use that later on. Gryllida 11:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I sure hope Gryllida's message is a generic that was just slapped on [oh, yes, you do note it's Stop2]; as a customized message, it would violate the principle
  • Don't waste time and effort explaining to an obviously self-aware vandal that what they did is vandalism.
As for Brianmc's message, how about
  • Don't phrase things to box someone into a corner; always leave them room to improve. Better —relatively— to say "you've been blocked for being a slimeball" (describes current behavior) than "you've been blocked, you slimeball" (describes a static condition).
--Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do not insult the vandals. Gryllida 23:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Six minutes isn't a bad response time, I s'pose :-).
Pinpoint link: WN:NOT#wikipedia --Pi zero (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Spartaaaaaa! :P --Brian McNeil / talk 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes, Gryllida - you have to do what you have to do. I'm a firm believer in "don't hand it out if you can't take it" :) +1 to Brian. BarkingFish (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia is a huge community; they can afford to undo the same vandalism 50-60 times, before dealing with vandals in other, more creative, ways. An offended vandal may well scheme to have "revenge", or look for ways to circumvent a block where they think they're annoying someone. Guess what? If they think we're having fun blocking them and tormenting them,... It's a whole lot less fun for the would-be vandal.
"Sometimes you have fun, and sometimes the fun has you."—Sgt. Shlock. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism off of my user space. Very much appreciated. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 17:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

    • Sure I wouldn't mind having it protected, how do we request it? --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I semi-protected User:Nascar1996. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 00:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


I have blocked you for 24 hours. This is a preventative block. The drama's over; you both, Brian and Matisse have been behaving like little children. Just because this Yet Another Drama (TM) is occurring in the Comments namespace, it doesn't have to be ignored. This never ending thing between you two, and some other people has to stop sometime, and a block may help you think better about this. アンパロ Io ti odio! 03:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

comments namespace

Comments namespace purpose is to comment on an article, where it doesn't involve changing it (otherwise it's the talk namespace). Please try to talk about people at their talk pages in educational manner nomatter where they made a mistake - this would help to avoid confusion. Thanks, Gryllida (% talk) 07:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Gryllida, I am not in the mood for a lecture on this. I suggest you review, from start to finish, the edit history of Mattisse's talk page on enWP. Then, look at the repeat warnings in Comments namespace not to get involved where she oh-so obviously could not cope with an argument. She'll be back, again, only to throw all the toys out the pram again. You might ask her what the personality defect she's demonstrated here is called. Me? I've a wikimeet venue to book, a few professors and librarians to chat to. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I won't read the en.wp page, as it was dealt with; I won't bring it up here.

I agree that they may have handled some of the conversation in a better way, but rather than pointing out that their talk is incompetent like you see it, just letting it slide and moving along to some friendly interpretation in the comments thread would be easier for both you and them.

Along with that - only along with that! - if you find their issue repetitive, you may leave a educational note at their talk page if you want things to change. It has to be as friendly as possible, like you would write it to your younger brother (assuming if you had one) case he goes and decides to contribute to Wikinews himself, and makes mistakes similar to what you see.

I personally find that either of these two actions, or both, would be preferable to, while being a Wikinewsie and Administrator, scare them off the project. --07:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

While I agree that Mattisse's initial comment may be considered teasing, we can as well realise that it is confusion caused by the offtopic-ness of the comments namespace. I would be inclined to advise them to just stop reading the comments namespace if they don't like it (this is what I do); while your response has that hint, it also a) contains a line which Mattisse had trouble interpreting and found offensive and b) isn't exactly phrased in educational tone. --Gryllida (% talk) 08:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't have a younger brother; my younger sister is in her mid-thirties. And, I've a fifteen-year-old stepson; he has better coping, and reading comprehension skills. I've no problem dealing with him; but, an alleged courtroom expert witness falls apart when I write a few words?
You should read Mattisse's block log, plus talk and user history. Years of the same paranoid persecution complex as-exhibited here. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I won't refer to his previous actions, they've been dealt with. If you personally hate him, please avoid; otherwise educate in a friendly manner. Thanks, --Gryllida (% talk) 08:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Her; Mattisse has asserted xe is female. And, I do not hate her. Her previous actions became relevant when she became disruptive on Wikinews; this is merely a continuance of the same destructive pattern of behaviour that went on there for four years. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you, after seeing their previous behavior which was dealt with, don't feel like continuing to educate them, then please refrain from any kind of action at all - I think that no matter how relevant your comment would be, it being delivered to them by someone else would be likely to cause a more adequate reaction after all that happened. --Gryllida (% talk) 08:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • To satisfy your aspirations to WikiDiplomat; yes, I will try to avoid initiating direct interactions with Mattisse. That does not mean I would pass over contributions requiring review. But, this is the second spat of disruption xe has initiated – this time in a manner antithetical to good journalism by proposing censorship. Next time, and, yes, I'm pessimistic enough to expect it as I find past performance is an indication of that in the future, I will reopen the prior Dispute Resolution, and present a solid case why the community should consider far stronger sanctions. You might want to point out to Mattisse that most people here take a very dim view of attempts to blackmail through threatening to leave. Trying it for a third time might well be met with assistance from an irked admin. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

This dispute was initiated by Mattisse, and dealt with. (They agreed to terms and indeed didn't break themselves). Case you desire to have disputes with other people, please follow all the steps outlined at the dispute resolution page first, and then open a new dispute on your own if necessary. Thanks, --Gryllida (% talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Per the closure of the prior dispute; I declined to make my case therein whilst Mattisse ran amok on the page. It was closed with the option to reopen, and I would take advantage of that. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

That first dispute was something intended to resolve Mattisse's claims toward you, which was resolved; if you have any claims toward Mattisse, re-opening it would be frowned upon, since it's another matter. Gryllida (% talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • I'll defer to the closing admin's opinion on that. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • As the closing admin of the previous DR, I'd be inclined to disagree with Gryllida - when I closed the Dispute Resolution, it was with the proviso that it may be reopened if further issues occur. To this end, I will reopen the dispute and ask both parties to comment there shortly. Thank you. BarkingFish (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Thank you for making it in a manner which separates previous part of the dispute from this one. This is about all I was trying to get here; if this is done without a new DR, I'm fine with it. --Gryllida (% talk) 13:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • My comment here was, sadly, misconstrued. It was my intent to reserve the option to reopen the prior Dispute Resolution, not to ask for that to be done.
        • Whilst you, Gyllida, seem to think the problems Mattisse caused, and experienced, on enWP are not pertinent; I assure you, they are. There is a small enough active community here that I need do little work on where Mattisse has been the cause of problems; merely, to prove that this is a simple continuance of disruptive, deceitful behaviour on enWP that is played out with faux innocence. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • Beware accusations of "faux innocence"; deducing motives is problematic. The farthest possible thing from assuming good (or, for that matter, bad) faith is to not speculate on sincerity at all. --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've, for better or worse, laid out a substantial part of my case on the Dispute Resolution page. But, yes, it appears to be behaviour that defies analysis. The simple fact is, it is extremely damaging behaviour to the wiki's community. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply


{{replied|User:Gryllida/questions/BrianMc}}--Gryllida 09:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what the template is to invite to a new discussion though? :) That's it. Apologies, though. Gryllida 11:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for responding. --Gryllida 11:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Urgent review required

hello Brian .. i have posted an article .. can you please review it and post it thanks... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashishnoelmassey (talkcontribs)

I have moved the article back to developing as there are numerous points needing resolved; please see the template on the article, and address as many as you can. Should any points be unclear, please use the article's discussion page to ask for clarification. I would recommend looking at this essay for some clues on formatting; but, it will not address the use of euphemism in place of cold facts, specifically that this individual has died. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

UoW project

Hi Brian, what do you think about the University of Wollongong project? Do you want to be involved in writing it up, report style, and we'll build in academic theory and the like later? 07:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Leigh, let me know what input from me will be useful; I've been busy the past few days, had to play host to Witty Lama, and John from WMUK, plus be the "Scottish presence" in meeting Museums and Galleries Scotland. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • No worries, good to know you're still around. I'll contact you by email when we know where we're going. Leighblackall (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • I'm hopeful that, for Wikinews, I've got MGS encouraged to let me have privileged access to the re-openings of the Scottish National Museum and National Portrait Gallery; it'd be looking to do interview segments (management on the refurbishment, curators on the exhibits, floor staff on what they like about working in the place and their favourite parts of the buildings and exhibits), plus a swathe of photos (with my 2-megapixel camera phone it's no threat to their glossy books). --Brian McNeil / talk 07:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: Most wanted / John Nevard

Hi. Just thought I'd let you know, John didn't write the Most Wanted stuff - I saw the note you left on his talk page, he actually tagged it for deletion :) See here for one of the ones he got. I deleted them earlier as A11, Unambiguous Copyright violation. BarkingFish (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Brian!

Thanks Brian for your help regarding the article. I appreciate it so much! Thanks for all the contributions you make to WikiNews and beyond. #wikilove SarahStierch (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

reviewer, NARA article

Hey Brian. First of all, thanks for supporting my nomination for reviewer status. I'm pleased to have your confidence. :) As for the NARA Wikipedian-in-Residence article, I've left some comments on the talk page. Since the quote in question was not an integral part of the article, I just removed it entirely, but nonetheless I would appreciate further discussion on what exactly was inappropriate about my use of Sarah's quote. I look forward to hearing from you, Ragettho (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)Reply


Thanks! --Dodge (t - e - c) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

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

I sent you the email... please check Stapler80 (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Murdoch pie

Murdoch, pies and Select Cm'ttee.

Above are sundry sources related to newer developments. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply


Hi Brian, you still following the Zeus botnet? This is an interesting development: the wub "?!" 10:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

That was pretty much inevitable.
What I discovered about 18 months ago was that, once on a PC, it will log into the local wireless access point and change it to point to rogue DNS servers. By doing that, it can compromise every other machine connecting. Next, it goes after removable media: USB sticks, memory cards for cameras, micro-SD cards - basically anything that could get it a chance to infect another device.
I flat-out refuse to use online banking of the sort largely used in the UK. In Belgium the bank issued a DigiPass for each customer, that's far more secure than silly passwords that a keylogger can compromise. I could quote Spaf on the mechanics of online commerce: "Using encryption on the Internet is the equivalent of arranging an armored car to deliver credit card information from someone living in a cardboard box to someone living on a park bench."
Incidentally, whilst I was trying to resolve the Zeus infestation we'd been hit with, and about 8 hours before the BBC splashed up a major story on it, I went through the main station in Edinburgh and every card-operated ticketing machine was offline. Makes me thinks reports like this Guardian one are just the tip of the iceberg. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Nasty! I too suspect that malware attacks and cyberwarfare are far more extensive than any of the media report. China boasted not long ago of having a dedicated bunch of government sponsered hackers, other countries surely have the same, and then there's all the "rogue" groupings (Anon, LulzSec and the many more sensible enough to keep a lower profile). There's certainly mega profits to be made.
NatWest's system actually seems fairly secure for online banking. They only take randomly chosen characters from a password (making keylogging far more difficult), and making a payment to any account not authorised before or on a whitelist requires authentication with card reader, card and PIN. Frustrating when you can't find the card reader under piles of junk, but fairly secure. I refuse to bank on my phone though, that just seems like asking for trouble. the wub "?!" 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nat Museum article

I, Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal, hereby congratulate you for National Museum of Scotland reopens after three-year redevelopment Well written, good pics 05:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


Just noting, the problem with has cleared up, so they now have data on National Museum of Scotland reopens after three-year redevelopmentJuly, August. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another UoW class?

Are we expecting another UoW class passing through this fall? We've had three new accounts tonight who all put notes on their user pages self-identifying as UoW journalism students. --Pi zero (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yep. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Just out of curiosity, is there a plan in place to deal with the expected influx of articles in the coming term? I'd hate to see more articles go to waste due to reviewer unavailability. :( Ragettho (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
We do the best we can. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Looks like they may have been told to either choose a username ending in UOW or self-declare on their user page. I've just cat'd several self-declaring user pages. There are a bunch more ending in UOW; I s'pose I'll cat them too. --Pi zero (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Based on last term's efforts at this, students have been advised to clearly identify as UoW. Probably be best with a new internal category as this is a new class. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good point. Perhaps Category:UoW student (Fall 2011) and retroactively Category:UoW student (Spring 2011). --Pi zero (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't worry about the past students as a priority - that can be done anytime. I'm going to look at Ragettho's concern being raised by David. We want students under no illusion that we'll copyedit the living daylights out their stuff. It has to be 90%+ of the way to publishable. David Blackall is actually absolutely delighted with the results of the Spring semester. Yeah, lots of students got "hard knocks" - he wanted that ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk
I think that we should prioritize student reviews as much as is reasonable, due to the fact that their work on Wikinews will effect their grades. I don't have a lot of time to review stuff ATM, but if they're doing decent work I'm willing to be added to a list of people that can be emailed for "priority student reviews". By good work I mean this: I don't want to have to spend more than 15 to 20 minutes copyediting and factchecking a moderately sized article, with minimal work on article formatting (longer articles obviously entail more work). Gopher65talk 23:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Really? I'm not so sure that the professor has turned Wikinews reviewers into teaching assistants. I imagine that he has a way of ensuring that his students get the grades they reserve, regardless of what happens on Wikinews.
In any case, if the students' accounts are categorized by term, remember that the seasons are flipped in the southern hemisphere. UoW is officially in their spring session. Ragettho (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Each reviewer chooses what article(s, if any) to review, and in what order; it's just as well all reviewers don't apply the same priorities, the variation helps spread reviewer attention more evenly.
Spring/fall — careless of me. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
<"deserve", not "reserve"> Apparently it's contagious.... I blame Dendodge =P Ragettho (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've created a category for the spring semester, moved the five recently declared students to it, and also added to it seven other recently created accounts whose usernames end with "uow". (I didn't add Cjfuow279, though I wondered about that one.)

Although I imitated Category:UoW student by making the category hidden, I wonder if it wouldn't be more useful un-hidden. --Pi zero (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

(Three more this morning, two ending with "uow" and one starting with it; total now fifteen.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

CU practice

Something I've been wondering about. From background research last year, I'd observed it is usual practice to decline self-requests to be CU'd unless there's independent evidence to justify it. How do you see that practice relating (or failing to relate) to your request for CU of Mattisse? --Pi zero (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This isn't about Mattisse, per se; this is about a small detail I'd feel better having clarified before I throw my support behind re-granting you CU privs (noting, if I didn't bring it up, somebody else might). I'll try to clarify. A user (doesn't matter who) asked you to CU them. Maybe they had a history of socking on a sister project. You responded by submitting a request at WN:CU. All the CU's who reviewed the request declined, one reason being that self-request is generally not considered a sufficient reason to CU; I've witnessed folks over at meta self-requesting to be CU'd because they say they're under a cloud due to suspicion of socking, and the CU's there declining those requests. I'd like to know how you view the declining of self-requests, and how you would handle such a case if you had the privs to do it yourself. --Pi zero (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Meta states: "Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt." We have nothing one-way-or-the-other regarding that. So it isn't covered by our CU policy, nor is it explicitly forbidden by the policy on meta. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough.
If you do reapply for CU, and assuming no dramatic unforeseen developments in the meantime (e.g., you turn out to be a sockpuppet of Kittiesonfire), I'd vote for. --Pi zero (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
It raises an interesting point, though. Should a derivative of that paragraph from meta be incorporated into our CU policy? It would have to be very carefully worded - so much so that it might be worth asking counsel. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
The passage gives projects great latitude to decide when to allow self-request; it's the words "for example" that really open it up.
CU is to be used "only to prevent damage to any of the Wikimedia projects." That's especially relevant wording for self-request in our case, as our stake in reputation of individuals includes potential damage to the reputation of the project.
Do we have an explicit CU policy? I'm only finding links to the meta page. --Pi zero (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wait... so Brianmc is a sockpuppet of Kittiesonfire??! I knew it all along!
I don't particularly like the idea of self-requested CUs. However, there are probably circumstances where it would make sense to self request, so I don't think we should have a blanket ban. Rather, it should be a discouraged practise. Blanket bans don't take into account the possibility of a grey area... and life is nothing *but* a giant grey area:P. Gopher65talk 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

What we've got on WN:CU is, effectively, our policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Reply


Please undelete it its a page organised by MeatBallWiki for a tour of the Wikipedia:Wikis. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBestGuyHi (talkcontribs)


Care to help out/archive cases that appear to be old/resolved at Wikinews:Requests for CheckUser? That will make it easier to respond to newer ones in the future. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

UOW updates

Hey! I was just wondering whether you've had any updates on the UOW students. Has the professor said anything about the results of his students' articles? Are his students now better aware of Wikinews policies? Also, what exactly is the assignment, and how frequently are these students supposed to be contributing to Wikinews? Best, Ragettho (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is the second batch we're currently experiencing. Some from the first batch "became clueful", a few failed disastrously.
They're all being as-much-as-possible left to sort themselves out - much as would be the case were they given the job of working on a newspaper and ordered to read the employee manual, style guide, and so on. But, being students, many of them are too lazy to do homework before trying to publish. Continue to shoot down editorialising; give 'em enough time they'll learn this is not a blog, nor the letters page of The Daily Mail. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Second batch of students, or second batch of homework assignments? I'm just curious what the assignment is, because some of these students are annoyingly persistent. :/ Ragettho (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Different class. The last one was iirc fourth-years and some third-years; this seems to be first- and second-years. From user-page remarks, this is a class in Media Law and Ethics, and they're trying to do articles relevant to that topic. --Pi zero (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for feedback

Thanks so much for the positive feedback Brian!

It is great to be recognised, and even better to pe published, on WikiNews. Twice!

Super exciting.



"PetaSmithUOW (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)"Reply

Template:Howdy tabber

Hello. I like what you did with Template:Howdy. Is it possible to use it in some other Wikipedia? --Zack (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • (This is Wikinews, not Wikipedia). Yes, it should be possible to take the relevant bits 'n' pieces to use it on any MediaWiki install. I'm updating the documentation on the template so this should be easier to do. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi. I've just copied both codes for MediaWiki:Common.css and .js to ar-WP. There's also a copy of Template:Howdy/content in my sandbox there. Now it's a question of time, isn't it?--Zack (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You could've used a hard refresh to force it to work; and, you'll need to get people to do that if using it straight away. Otherwise, give it a week before starting to use it - which would probably be good it terms of allowing the community to haggle over the actual content. Incidentally, I'd be most interested to see the Arabic version when it is close to complete (I'll bet Bawolff, who did the CSS and JS, would too). --Brian McNeil / talk 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's ready. feedback plz... --Zack (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Can't read a word of Arabic, but it looks good. What's the local community's feedback? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Waiting.. I'll translate for you some of it as soon as it appears. What does Bawolff think about it? ps. looks better on FFox --Zack (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


I saw your name at WikiNews: List of WikiNews Welcommittee volunteers and would like to ask you a question: Why exactly should I create an account here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 03:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


I'll be glad to look at any tutorial (re: pretty much anything) you can send my way. I walked through Commons' steps re: the Open Source ogv channels....and cried myself to sleep for two nights in a row -- I just couldn't "get it", man! Command line stuff doesn't scare me.....nor does Open Source stuff -- I'm madly in love with Audacity and The GIMP 2.0.....but I just couldn't make it "click" with me.....I'm sorry. Thankfully, someone put me on to "Miro"......and I've slept like a baby since.....but I still have no earthly idea how to change the resolution of videos before posting them. --Bddpaux (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll dig up the command line-fu; I can probably give you a few simple scripts if you can get the relevant bits installed. It is my longer-term intent to have a converter running on (feed in a recognised format, spit out a variety of formats). --Brian McNeil / talk 09:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

ar-WP tl howdy

Hi again. The community-approved final version of the remake of Template:Howdy for Arabic Wikipedia is here, thanks to your help. --Zack (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


.....just wondering if a consensus has been reached re: my accreditation request? --Bddpaux (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Scottish Wiki T-shirt

Hi Brian - I see there is a wiki meet in Edinburgh, which I am unlikely to get to, but would love a T-shirt if such can be bought and posted! I live in Fife, and have been enjoying wikipedia for some 10 months. Can you advise? Any reply is probably best sent to Viking1808 (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


How do you think this could be improved? Do you review articles? --Onewhohelps (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, a reviewer reviewed it and declined it. May I tell you that I actually didn't

use East and Star to write the article. In fact I wrote it based on the BBC and The Telegraph so I don't know how they can say it is an exact copy/paste. Please could you have a look at this. Thanks. :) --Onewhohelps (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Go to Google News and type in "Mr Bradley had been drinking prior to the flight with friends before boarding". You'll see that numerous sources are a very, very close match to that. It would be on this basis that the article has been failed as a copyvio. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Edinburgh wiki-meet

Hey Brian, I'l try to approach you at work some time but you always look so busy. I was expecting and email off you over the weekend. Did you make contact with your library insiders? Jambamkin (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Life extension manifestation

Dear Brian, Thank you for your comments with the article I requsted new one. If you could help me to fix it I be extremly greatful, because it is pending many days already and becomming outdated

  • I don't have time to rework this article to correct this issues arising from it being contributed by someone who isn't a native English speaker. Also, there's the concerns that we have no Russian speakers as reviewers who can verify it matches sources. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey Brian, Sorry for bothering you, may be you could give me an advise what to do. I am a kind of becoming desperate, time is going out, I requested the article but it seems nobody cares. The funny thing is that the rally the article is about is aimed to attract people's attention to the revolutional news: a possibility to extend human life tremendously and need to focus mankind's efforts on it, such claim is based on scientific facts: there are animals that do not age, and in labs life of animals is extended, now it is turn for humans. I wonder if there are any more important news on this planet. Please let me know if you can be any of help. Thank you in advance! Live long!

UoW student failed articles

I believe there are quite a few UoW student articles this semester that have been deleted as abandoned.

  • Should these be undeleted and moved to their authors' user space?
  • If so, what (if anything) should we be doing to help keep track of them? (Perhaps Category:UoW 2011 student work? Afaik we haven't been populating that category this semester — ought we?)

--Pi zero (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

WHen I get home tonight, I'll email David and ask him to get students to alert us of deleted article titles and users tha that created them. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is it allowed?

In Sindhi language wikipedia the administrator submitted his thesis as a page, is it allowed this type of personel thesis? Alixafar (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Protesters article

Could you please review Police officers put on leave after pepper spraying protesters for me? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the pass, Brian. :) --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Recent discussion of openglobe & wikinews work?

Hello Brian,

Is there a discussion anywhere on either project about the different work OG and WN are tackling, parallel issues with participation/audience/collaboration?

Warmly, sj (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Never assume

I've been thinking (the above thread reminds me) of revamping the AGI essay into one under the title of "Never assume" — the two key points being, first, a Wikinewsie shouldn't assume anything; and second, to get along with people one should try to leave them room to retreat, by not branding them as more badly behaved than one must to address the situation. I really think this is what AGF always should have been instead of what it was, and if it's done well enough other projects might filch it (as they so often do with our innovations). Which would be a very good thing, because the culture of assuming things is a slow-acting toxin to the entire wmf family.

  When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me  

Btw, for the overhaul, I'd been thinking to have a pull-quote, "When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me", but I don't know whom to attribute it to. The earliest solid reference folk seem to know of on the intertubes is a 1973 episode of The Odd Couple, but even then it's admitted that's just what "made it famous". (Uncyclopedia attributes it to Oscar Wilde; and for some reason, my aging copy of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations doesn't list it. :-)

Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with the thrust of this. Maybe we worry less about the source of the quote, Uncyclopedia has a bit of a love affair with abusing the memory of Wilde for any and all outrageous statements. I also agree that Wikinews should continue to push its role as a test-bed, and AGI is an area where we've a far higher, challenging, standard to work to.
It'd probably shock some TOG people to know I hope they don't fall foul of the serious risks I think they've opened themselves up to – legal action for copyright violation, defamation, &c. I think their biggest failing is that they didn't set up an auto-importer to snag anything published on Wikinews. They know we're probably too-strict in review standards, so our articles are almost always 'safe' for them to lift and discreetly attribute. I expect, given time, someone will do that; but, they've still to automate simple stuff like the creation of day category pages – a reminder that we should probably have all that crud documented. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for feedback im not going to edit it again,just changed council name as wrong although commonly known as western isles council its not its legal name common eilan siar(not write spelling) is. do agree wih ur edits though the process is turgid i'll try again when time permits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reflectingscotland (talkcontribs)

story prep

I dropped a note on the article talk. --Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Opening ceremony is scheduled for 1430GMT, please publish shortly thereafter" — optimist. --Pi zero (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. But, what's wrong with that? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Now published, and Lead 1.
  • Review comment requests the notes. Unreadable or not, and however belated they may be by the time you have time. This was my compromise with not being a complete bastard about detailed OR notes.
  • The only confirmation I found of the event is from STV Edinburgh, who didn't bother to wait for the ceremony with Alex Salmond, and I had a sinking feeling the msm might not bother for a long time to confirm that aspect of it, so I ran without, surgically removing the two details I'd identified as depending on it. The First Minister has been erased.
My on-screen-edit copy of the article is really quite colorful — blue for directly sourced, green for sanity-checked, yellow for credible, red for dependent on actual events not yet occurred at writing, and orange for one detail oddly inconsistent with the press kit, but not in a seriously concerning way. --Pi zero (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I saw you'd done the needed to publish in a timely manner; I was annoyed that there was no confirmation on Salmond's attendance and, had I been able to edit from my phone, would have probably done the same.
What, incidentally, is/was the inconsistency with the press kit? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Heh. My comment did sort of beg that question, didn't it. "Next to the Reformation to Revolution gallery is A Survey of Scotland" — Opening Exhibition Information says those are respectively Galleries 1 and 3, which SNPG Orientation plan says aren't adjacent. Not only can the meaning of "next to" be stretched, or even copyedited after archiving it's so minor, but my own experience with big events generally, and art museum events in particular, is that the press kit information could easily have ended up different from what was actually in the rooms. --Pi zero (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Have them all shot

Thanks for fixing the title. I realized after publishing I hadn't done right by the headline, but by then didn't trust myself to be thinking straight (midnight local, after a series of late nights).

Btw, BRS gave me access to the Wikinews Facebook page so I could post articles there, but when I went to actually do it I couldn't figure out the interface (a case of "only a child can do it", perhaps). --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

/me notes I've the Rufus T. Firefly remark in my quote randomiser.
The simplest way to post an article on Facebook is open FB in one tab, select "Use facebook as Wikinews", then in another tab use the Social Bookmarking tool built-into the publish template. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I of course would go with the Tom Lehrer version. (Family tradition — my parents were at Harvard GSAS at the same time as Tom.)
I actually did get as far as using the tool on the publish template. The instructions given me said I'd get a window that's a sort of makelead-lite, but it was lighter than expected or described: the only thing it would allow me to do, that I could figure, was to post a bare link with no icon and no summary. I beat my head against the (Facebook) wall for a while, and went to bed. --Pi zero (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Brian McNeil/Archive 16".