User talk:SVTCobra/2010 Archive
Why did you change the tag?
I don't know what more can possibly be "developed" with regards to the article I wrote. I'm confused about why you would change it from "review" to "develop." I don't understand that move at all. UnitAnode 02:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: NBA star Gilbert Arenas pleads guilty to gun possession, could face six months in prison
I dug up a google cache link for the disputed report. It's on the article talk - plus a note about a lot of sources being used and some not seeming to in any way be used for the article content. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
She won it on the 30th, but no one created the article on the news, and I want it to be moved to a title of Serena Williams wins 2010 Australian Open, can you do that for me. I am new to this wiki.Bluedogtn (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- I can change that for you. Please be aware, we do not create articles as if they were written in the past. We are (in some respects) like a printed newspaper. The earliest date that an article can have is the date that someone submits it to Wikinews. The actual date will be when it is published by peers. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I was working on "Miramax shut down by Disney". I was working on it. :( Why did you delete it? --AquaTeen13
- It was deleted because it hadn't been worked on since Feb 1. It was tagged abandoned and then deleted two days later. Calebrw (talk · contribs) deleted it, btw, not I. If there are new developments and you wish to write and article about it, it can be restored. However, we are not in the practice of writing news about the past, so there has to be something fresh before it can be published. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
A quite note
Please see: "Talk:'Unlawfully_and_without_malice':_Michael_Jackson_doctor_charged_with_involuntary_manslaughter". Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I added sources for the Sakurai Prize for the article below. "Massive" Prize" is title becuase prize is large and was awarded for how particle get mass.
- I am sorry, I don't have much time to look at this, but the title "massive prize" seems to be too 'cute'. Stick to Sakurai Prize so people know what the heck you are talking about. Wikinews doesn't really have much room for inside jokes among physicists. Cheers and good luck, --SVTCobra 02:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Your edit summary
Hello. I'm just visiting your talk page to give you some information, that you may need to know if you are going to do future NASCAR articles. Jayski.com is a reliable source because it is owned and operated by ESPN, a huge sports telvision comapany in the United States. If you want to prove that I am telling the truth, please look below their logo in the link that I gave you. Thanks. 20:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have left a note on the talk page accounting for the age of the sources, and advocating the currency of the story. In brief, original research can cover the immediacy (the song is in the charts now), whereas the sources cover the background. We can update the date and information too. The JPS (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't you say that this would be too substantive to make to an archived article? In which case it really ought have been left for someone else to sight. --Pi zero (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Pi zero, this was not (and still is not) an archived article. If you mean a published article, then perhaps, but it was well within 24 hours of publishing. I thought I found a middle ground between two disputing editors; one to which there have been no objections. No one has yet seen fit to make changes to what I did and sighted. So, it must not have been that bad. Sorry I no longer have time to be a truly active member of the Wikinews team. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- My original question was not about the edit, it was about self-sighting the edit.
- When a substantive edit is made to a published article, policy says it should not be sighted by the person who made it; instead, it should be subjected to peer-review by an independent reviewer. Trivial stuff can be self-sighted, no problem — and the criterion that was chosen for when the edit needs peer review is: would that edit be allowed under the archive policy if the article had already been archived? If you can do it to an archived article, you can self-sight, but bigger edits should be left for another reviewer to sight. (You may not have been around when this policy was adopted, earlier this year; apologies for not allowing for that possibility in my first post.)
- As for the edit itself, had I been the independent reviewer peer-reviewing it at the time, I'm not sure I would have sighted it. Replacing "schoolgirl" with "teenager" would have worked well, and would have been readily verifiable from the sources, but I'm having trouble finding in the sources for this article, or in the related articles, or in their sources (those that still work) a statement that she had actually graduated. The point is that since you were adding new information, that addition should have been subjected to independent peer review before publication. --Pi zero (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I was responsible for this policy-change. I'm almost certain you missed it - hardly your fault! I'd wanted to spam a quick message to those with the reviewer right to keep people in the loop, but others shot this down. The thinking was reviewing became somewhat redundant if info can be added afterwards with no second pair of eyes. It was open to both accidental slips and purposeful abuse. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)