For previous messages, see User talk:C628/archive

election certificate




Election Certificate

The election committee for the 2010 Arbitration Committee election certifies that this user was elected to be an Arbitrator until July 31, 2011.

Benny the mascot (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply



Hey C628! I'm sorry to see that you've become dissatisfied with Wikinews. I do hope things work out for you in the near future; our door is always open. :) Benny the mascot (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sigh... Yet another great user leaves. I'll take this to mean that you no longer plan to serve as an Arb. fetch·comms 20:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to see you go, I can't say I blame you :( the wub "?!" 20:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
*sigh* Sad to see you leave. :( —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Reply



How's it going? fetch·comms 22:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, not too bad. How about you? C628 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Welcome back! I saw you created an article. Nice to see this project getting a bit of a revival. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I have to say, it's nice to be back. C628 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Welcome back. I'll make sure I'm not mean to you this time. Sorry about before:(. Gopher65talk 05:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Handy template and gadget


Hey there. (Sorry I didn't welcome you back sooner.)

Thought I'd put in a good word for a handy template we've only had for a little over a month. It's got the same name as a notoriously pointless legacy template from the ancient past of wiki software: {{w}}. It uses one or two parameters like a [[w:...]] but

  • it checks for a local target first, and only goes to Wikipedia if no local target is found; and
  • if it does link to Wikipedia, it acts like w:Template:Sec link auto in that from the secure server it links to the secure server. (I haven't wired it to do anchors, though; they don't seem to fit into the intended purpose of {{w}}.)

There's also a neat gadget Microchip08 whipped up so that when you look at a page, if there's a {{w}} link on it that links locally, the link is underlined in green. --Pi zero (talk) 23:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request to review


Could you please review my article, entitled Japan earthquake shifts Earth's axis 10 centimetres? There isn't much time left before this article goes stale. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll see what I can do with Google translate. C628 (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Power line to Japanese nuclear plant completed


The final quotes in the article are not as long as shown in the sources. The one prior to the last one isn't even a quote. Do you have another source to say they did say that. Also I think you should reword to be similar to the actual quote in the source. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I intended for the quotes to be only partial compared to the sources, since I think it's generally better for the article to not be entirely dependent on quotes for its content. On the other hand, the BBC seems to have modified its article since I looked at it, and it's taken out some of the quotes I lifted from it. I've added some more sources to cover that. C628 (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I seen that. After a final review over the article to check for any mistakes it will be published since everythings sourced. I seen your edits in the recent changes. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)



Re [1] Not wanting to argue but "democracy" is mentioned in the source.

Jeffrey Fleishman and Amro Hassan. "Egyptians overwhelmingly approve constitutional changes" — Los Angeles Times, March 20, 2911

"The referendum, which calls for judicial oversight of elections and limited presidential terms, was the first step to bring Egypt closer to a democracy after decades of corrupt one-party rule."

The date has changed on the article, but it is the same one I used. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, blast, I never even saw the text on that article, only the video. That appears to also be where a bit I removed because I couldn't find it in the sources came from...sorry about that. Feel free to re-add that. C628 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it may be just as well. Just abstract words when a list of the main changes is clearer. The less words the better! Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



Hi! I'd appreciate your comments on this thread for reviving the project. I really want to get recent proposals implemented and get Wikinews going on the path to success. The more people help brainstorm and discuss constructively, the better. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Category:Goodluck Jonathan

edit now fully populated. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. C628 (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re Bob Dylan plays first concert in Vietnam


What you removed (as far as I can tell) is sourced by [2]. There are no videos in the sources, or if there are, they are not necessary to source the article. Also, the quotebox is in the article and is sourced by [3] I hope you don't mind that I restored the quotebox, although the other sourced material you removed I will just leave out. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yeah, the quotebox is fine. I'd removed the Examiner-sourced stuff because I don't consider the Examiner to be a reliable source, since it's written by random people (kinda like Wikinews), but as far as I can tell it's not reviewed or edited by anyone. C628 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Oh, OK. I wasn't familiar with the source, and assumed it was as reliable as any for such things. It wasn't really obviously unreliable, like the National Enquirer, and I took it at face value. Normally, I would have been more thorough, but I really ought to go deal with this personal stuff. (Damn Internet's so appealing). DENDODGE 21:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Greg Kohs writes for the Examiner. And they let me in, too (although I declined to join because I only applied to see if I could get in). It's like a Wikinews that reviews users' "experience" before giving them an account. fetch·comms 03:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Last night" on the main page


Re this, just a reminder that WN:ML says "Please remember to not use time-sensitive phrasing in Main Page leads, such as "yesterday" or "today" – the leads are sometimes around for several days after publication, and the phrasing becomes out of date quickly." And, yes, this is virtually the only thing I bother doing on Wikinews these days... Regards, Bencherlite (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Noted, thanks for letting me know. C628 (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Just a note, a couple of slips that got past review on this one (diff). --Pi zero (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"quiet" train car


Yes, this is a name - I restored the phrase "quiet car" at the article over here if you don't mind - if you find it vague, feel free to rephrase, but I think it's important for this news. --Gryllida (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do mind, it's factually inaccurate. Amtrak only operates designated quiet cars on some of its corridor routes; the train this happened on is a long-distance route that doesn't have a quiet car. I don't know why the rest of the media insists on calling it one, but that's dead wrong. If you look at Amtrak's website, its page on Northeast Regional corridor service, it explicitly notes that there's a designated quiet car. If you look at the page for the Coast Starlight, that's not present. The way the article is now is wrong. C628 (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

How did you find "Related news"?


I looked and looked for Related news for Brazil spots unknown tribe of indigenous people in Amazon jungle. What was your technique in finding those? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't add those, user:William S. Saturn did in this edit; you'd want to ask him. I only formatted them better. Cheers, C628 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply



Thanks for passing my article on the Philippine foreign secretary's visit to China. I appreciate the diligence you showed in reviewing such a lengthy article with many sources. Ragettho (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Review request


Can you please review British Gas to increase electricity, gas prices? I'd be grateful if you could. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done. :) C628 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Weren't you rather heavily involved in this article, to submit a review of it? Admittedly, some kinds of changes create a diff that makes the change look bigger than it is...

(Btw, I'd really like to believe I'd have thought to insist on a rename before publication, to not have specific numbers built into it that are sure to change; it's a recipe for a mess going forward.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was involved, yeah, but I though the importance of publishing the thing outweighed the importance of following policy to the letter. It's the biggest news story of the day, it's a little pathetic for us not to have something on it published, and I was comfortable enough that I didn't make a huge error that I was willing to publish it. The title, yes, I can see there'd be a problem with that. C628 (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
If a story is especially important, failing to maintain our standards on it is especially damaging to our reputation — says we can't even maintain our standards when it really matters. One doesn't even get far enough for that to kick in, though, because the very fact a reviewer is involved disqualifies them from judging how important it is (COI).
Note that the detailed text of WN:IAR explicitly identifies independent review as the prime example of a policy not subject to being ignored. --Pi zero (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer revocation


Further to the above discussions, and notes on the Admin alerts board, your reviewer rights on this site have been temporarily withdrawn for a period of 2 weeks from today, 15th July 2011. You are welcome to reapply for these rights from 29th July onwards. BarkingFish (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Worse things have happened. C628 (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Maybe so, but hopefully we won't have to do this again. BarkingFish (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



I've asked a question of you at your RFP. --Pi zero (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

FR/RFP Reconfirmation Failed


Hello C628. After 18 days, I've closed your Reconfirmation request at the FR/RFP, and I'm sorry to say that your rights have not been reconfirmed at this time. The final tally in your RFP was 2 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral. As a result of this, your right to use the reviewer bit has been withdrawn indefinitely, pending a full, new application for the bit at some point in the future. You may read a summary of my closing comments at this link. If you feel this is not an accurate assessment of the matter, you are welcome to refer this issue to the Admin Alerts Area or to another administrator for review. BarkingFish (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

And my fall from grace is complete...ah, well, so be it. C628 (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply