User talk:Microchip08/Archive/5

Curious

Why you don't sight template edits. If I was doing them I wouldn't sight them because I barely (if at all) understand the coding so I'd want them double-checked, but I assume you know what you're doing. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that getting a second pair of eyes on edit is ever a bad thing (Linus' law), even if they don't fall directly into mainspace. It certainly doesn't hurt (the addition to the review load is trivial, and people are more likely to sight single edits anyhow), it forces someone to agree or revert the edit, and saves having to figure out if the edit's trivial enough to self-sight (which I doubt they were). Microchip08 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody's a little rusty on site policy :P "...trivial enough to self-sight..." applies to mainspace. Anyhow, my curiosity is sated. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Votings/complicated stuff

I think I see the intent, but the aptly-named page is too complex for me to reinsert with a link to the disputed cat. If you could, you know, do what I'm too ignorant for, would be appreciated. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The intention was to draw attention to the sixty or so articles that probably require some interaction (whether that be fixing tasks, or deleting them). I'm not really sure why {{tasks}} doesn't add things to Category:Developing in the first place; at the moment, the definition of developing seems to be "new articles that have never been reviewed", as opposed to what I think was intended ("articles that aren't ready for publication but are nonetheless being worked on"). People, myself included, probably only edit the articles that are either in Special:RecentChanges or Category:Developing; I figured we needed to show the others off (and to passive-aggressively point out the backlog).

I'm not sure I like adding the Disputed category link to a sum of developing and disputed, although I can't think of a better way (unless you're verbose and add a separate entry for "Disputed articles"), but I made the edit anyhow Microchip08 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Could a DPL or something display the non-disputed pages at the top of Category:Developing? Then we could modify {{tasks}} accordingly without losing substantial amounts of functionality. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand; Category:Developing currently only has undisputed articles.

What functionality would we lose by replacing the Category:Disputed with Category:Developing on {{tasks}}? I don't see any reason to have a distinction between "the author doesn't think it's ready to review" and "a reviewer doesn't think the article was ready for review". I think we should redefine Category:Disputed to mean a passive "articles that are unlikely to ever be ready, nobody has really worked on this, you're welcome to try" (e.g. abandoned articles, articles that are borderline spam, new contributors that won't return), and Category:Developing as an active "articles that have a good chance of being ready, people are working on this, please contribute" (promising but failed reviews, new articles, "important" news). Certainly, we should triage articles better than we do. Microchip08 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about replacing, I was talking about adding Category:Developing alongside Category:Disputed. That, however, swamps the handful of other articles with stuff awaiting abandonment and deletion.

That seems an odd way of defining 'disputed'. I interpret as 'somebody thought this was ready, but a reviewer disagreed' in most cases.

"Certainly, we should triage articles better than we do." +1. The current system is a relic from the days of self-publish, so it was quite reasonable for something to be both published and disputed. It could stand some upgrading. That's a bigger job, though... BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Two more signals detected during search for flight MH370

Hi. I have reviewed Two more signals detected during search for flight MH370 and marked it not ready for review. Feedback has been left at Talk:Two more signals detected during search for flight MH370 on how to improve the article. If you have any additional questions, please ask on the talk page. I or another reviewer are more than happy to try to answer them. --LauraHale (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiLeaks release information on Internet governance

Hi. I have reviewed WikiLeaks release information on Internet governance and marked it not ready for publishing. Feedback has been left at Talk:WikiLeaks release information on Internet governance. Please address these concerns or ask for clarification as soon as possible before resubmitting as the article is borderline on the freshness issue. --LauraHale (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Watercooler discussion: Possible memorial fund?

Hi. I started a discussion on the English Wikinews water cooler at Memorial fund in Ashley-Nelson and Adrianne Wadewitz's honor?. I would really appreciate any feedback you could provide. --LauraHale (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews:Requests for permissions

I imagine Brian's assuming you've noticed, as you edited related templates just after. Nonetheless, a courtesy note that you've been asked to consider picking up the admin tools again. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mop and bucket

Your an admin again. --Pi zero (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Templates

Hi there. You have recently made some edits to the talk pages of established editors on Wikinews using overly formal prewritten messages. Did you know this is an annoying way to communicate? It alienate users by patronizing them, making them less likely to use their donated time to solve whichever problem you want them to work on.

For ideas on how to modify boilerplate responses to suit your uses you may wish to examine this essay by an English Wikipedian. Wikinews uses MediaWiki software, which makes for quick and easy edits!

Seriously. Don't do that. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a bespoke message, and there were a lot of pages to type it on. I didn't fancy writing a differently worded message for each user, so I made one that covered all the bases. It could probably be said that any user that manages to get themselves into a situation that has a boilerplate message probably deserves that boilerplate anyway…. Microchip08 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You cold have done it with just two versions. Most users only really need a sentence followed by a list. Two or three could use more than that. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

California passes legislation to ban harmful toxins

Hi Microchip08,

A few months ago I posted a news story up for review about California addressing the toxins in plastic water bottles.

I forgot to take any screen shots of the story and it has since been removed from my contributions page. Although it wasn't good enough to be published, I still need to document the story for a university assignment. Would you possibly be able to put it back up for a few days so I can screen shot it? I'm assuming it was you that removed it as you made some comments on it at the time.

Thank you so much, ( BCarter UOW (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) )

This seems uncontroversial, so I've undeleted the page and moved it to User:BCarter UOW/California passes legislation to ban harmful toxins for you. Microchip08 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Deleting admin notified (permalink). Microchip08 (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)