User talk:RockerballAustralia/Archive 4

I don't understand

Thank you very much for the offer but I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're talking about. Can you please explain to me in greater detail what it is you want me to do? Thanks --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just downloaded FinalTorrent but I can't get it to work properly. How do I download the link? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, I do what you've just said but the file doesn't appear in the downloads section of FinalTorrent for some reason. Any suggestions as to what the problem might be? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise, I would be willing to interview you, although some arrangements will have to be made. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 01:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Australian Foreign Minister condemns Fiji Media Decree

coul you review this as well =)

Australia's Governor-General cuts trip short over looming Election

^^ Refer Up =)

Weather bureau forecasts an early spring for Australia

Needs Urgent Reviewing

Civil Partnership Bill "significant win for social equality" for Queensland: Greens candidate

I struggled with how to explain the difficulty I see with the article, which got more complex the more I tried to simplify them. Fwiw, review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games

Hi. :) As you're an Australian contributor, I thought you might be interested in Wikimedians to the Games, which is an opportunity to cover the Paralympic Games as a member of the press. As you've experience writing Wikinews articles, this should give you a leg up. :) LauraHale (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

Extreme messiness because the lede said she died "today", but it was Sunday UTC when written as well as when published. It was Saturday for the author when written. When published, it was Sunday for the author but still Saturday where the event took place (California). Sigh. Anyway, it says "Saturday" now, and once Saturday is gone for all timezones it should be changed to "yesterday" on a permanent basis. --Pi zero (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Duely noted. (Note to self - Check JS time in top right hand corner of screen when reviewing) --RockerballAustralia c 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I keep wondering if there's some way to automate those relative dates, but so far I can't image how it could be done. --Pi zero (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FA Cup game article

Would you care to take over the review? I haven't really started yet, and am slow as molasses. --Pi zero (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviews

If you get time, can you look at the two Australian related articles I have submitted for review? Worried about timeliness. :( --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing --RockerballAustralia c 07:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming post-publish (software quirk)

I see you've fallen victim to something that's caught me any number of times (I almost never get it right). One publishes an article, realizes a few moments too late one should have renamed it before publishing, quickly renames it — and then, because the wiki software doesn't properly warn about certain kinds of pending changes, forgets to sight the rename. I've just noticed this on, and sighted the rename of, Softball Australia, federal government reaffirm support for indigenous softball. --Pi zero (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. Second problem: The opinions page didn't get moved with the article. There's supposed to be a mechanism that pops up, a few moments after renaming an article that has an opinions page, asking whether to rename that too (this being a trick question of course, since I can't think of any situation where the answer wouldn't be "yes"). I wonder if something isn't working right with that part of the software, because this is the second time recently I've noticed the opinions page not get moved with an article. --Pi zero (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that :-) A warning from the wikiware would've been nice, but what can we do <shrugs> --RockerballAustralia c 22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Reviews again :)

As you do Australian sport... :D

• Australian archer Alice Ingley readies for potential Olympic spot
• Australian archer Odette Snazelle in Canberra for nationals
• Australian field archers vie for spot at World Championships

If you could review one or more of those, that would be awesome. :D --LauraHale (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Review request again :)

Australian rowers prepare for 2012 Olympics is 35 hours over due and pi zero will be busy with the campaign trail article all day so is unlikely to get a chance to review anything else today. Any chance you could review? Also possibly Saipan Little League results? --LauraHale (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

And a third time :D

Capital Punishment mountain bike race won by Shaun Lewis. OR is fun. :) --LauraHale (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

African Olympians and Paralympians prepare for their London odyssey

This is a big article with a staggering collection of sources; Laura actually apologized off-wiki as she was starting to write it, for the massive task that reviewing it was going to be. A multi-hour review, for sure. (There were, btw, also lingering issues about whether it was being presented with a well-defined news focus so that it would come out as a news story rather than an essay; problems that hopefully could have been resolved, but it's not at all clear they had been, yet, and they overflowed into lots of other aspects of review.) You published the article, with no copyedits whatsoever, thirteen minutes after she submitted it for review. It's beyond my imagination how this could be anything other than rubber-stamping; it's impossible that the sources were checked. I'm not going to go, here, through the list of reasons that's utterly unacceptable. You're a valued contributor, in your capacity as a reporter, but rubber-stamp reviews are aggressively destructive to the project. I have in mind to nom you for de-reviewer later today (my local time), but obviously such is a very serious step and I wanted to inquire here after your side of the story first. I realize the time difference makes this awkward (I figure it's the wee hours of the morning in all Australian time zones atm). --Pi zero (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from citing the time between Laura formally submitting for review and me reviewing it. She'd PM'd me on IRC atleast ten minutes prior to renaming the article (about 15:07 UTC). I duely noted the number of sources and began reading through them. Nothing obvious stuck out on innitial review. On the double check - the second read through and source check - for whatever reason, any errors didn't reister with me. (A list of errors you're seeing may be benificial)

I did er a little bit whether this read like a news story. I finally decided this is the "line" between news and essay.

I do admit I probably allow myself more time in review and get a second opin on an aticle like this. All feedback is welcome. --RockerballAustralia c 02:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure enough; inadequacy of my imagination. <sigh>

There's likely a moral here about "paper trail" — IRC (let alone PM on IRC) leaves no evidence on-wiki, which can be a problem for observers (be they reviewers, writers, or readers). Awareness of the visibility problem figured into the creation of WN:Tips on reviewing articles, figures into its rule of thumb on copyedits, and is one of the things I like about using {{under review}} (though it wasn't helpful in this case; and it tends to be especially impressive when I use it because I'm such a slow worker).

Laura had rewritten the lede in response to my concerns about sharpness of focus, but not the headline. Had we caught it before publication, I wish we'd chosen a more unique headline (too late now, of course, post-publication renamings being strongly discouraged); the headline we ran with has nothing in it that identifies the time frame, and the time frame is all we have that pins down the focus of the article for the specificity facet of newsworthiness. --Pi zero (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Please check......

....the talk page on your recent interview article. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Brenton Clutterbuck

Category:Discordianism. --Pi zero (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Paralympic backlog

Hi. If you get the chance, can you help with the Paralympic article review backlog? The shooting ones should be relatively straight forward. --LauraHale (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Paralympic article backlog take two

We currently have seven unreviewed articles, many of them Paralympic articles. Any help in reviewing these today would be much appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

good news article

Figured I'd leave a note here just in case you weren't familiar with the case. The author has spent nearly two months in what —however it started out (which is ambiguous)— seems to have gradually slid into an effort to subvert our review process. (The deleted article talk page is, I suspect, a treasure trove of useful information about the project — maybe I'd better undelete it and prepend it to the current talk page.) I left a note on the current article talk page — this being the second time in a few hours the author recreated the article after it was deleted; see WN:AAA. Yeah, I'll definitely undelete and prepend. --Pi zero (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for reviewing and other assistance

Hi. Next week is the start of the IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics . This is part of an effort outlined at Wikinews:IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. It would be a really great time for you, as a Wikinews accredited reporter, to do some original reporting and conduct interviews. People should be around to interview to prevent a backlog, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

OR notes

I'd urge more complete OR notes. The principle we champion is, try to provide substantially more documentation than needed. This one was pretty marginal, even with the info I got from you on IRC about the origin of the stats for the other games; I note you didn't even say in the notes 'I attended this game' (let alone additional remarks). --Pi zero (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews at the Rugby: Sunshine Coast Stadium April 27, 2013

Could you add captions for the images/videos, please? I published it anyway, but.

Also, I had concerns about the documentation. See my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review --RockerballAustralia c 21:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)