User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2008/September

subst

There was actually some discussion about that at Template_talk:Peer_reviewed#What.27s_this.3F. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Arctic article

Well now, there is another title...Ramifications of Arctic ice melting. International icebreakers collect geological data and conduct climate research. Is this better? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I did see the title change. Makes more sense, still seems sensational. I have to reread the article to get a better grasp on what you are trying to communicate. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work at Wikinews Shorts: September 1, 2008. I've passed the review. Anonymous101^talk 21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As it turns out. I am capable of writing shorts. So I think I'll stick to reviews and writing shorts, no more attempts at real articles. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 21:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pre-election call, Conservatives start ads, including during kids TV

Pre-election call, Conservatives start ads, including during kids TV, the title could maybe use some work: "Pre-election call?" But I have done some c/e if you can think of more to ad. I assume you did fact checking, which I did not. I don't know if the "'election isn't official' is confusing" part is fixed or not, but I tried clarifying it a bit. —Calebrw (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

i'am just going around WikiNews saying hello to everyone and welcoming myself to you and others. --Megrins (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Award

I, Anonymous101^talk, hereby award ShakataGaNai the Wikinews Trophy for always reviewing articles, without your reviews the {{review}} system would probably have collapsed.

Anonymous101^talk 18:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

or syntax for DPLs

Just out of curiosity, where did you get the pipe as an or seperator for DPLS? Bawolff ☺☻

From the DPL manual. If you want I can dig up the URL. I assume it doesn't work because we don't have a new enough version. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm they must of changed it. Last time I looked the syntax was something like orcategory=blah. Using a pipe seems to make much more sense (/me wants DPL2 its been on my wishlist for about 2 years now). Our crappy version's manual is at WN:DPL. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the documentation that I used. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that version of the extension make you want to salivate over all its cool features (or is that just me :P) Bawolff ☺☻ 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Def. It would allow us to get away with alot of cool things. I haven't looked over what else there is in it yet - but I can assume that if cat's alone have cool features we need...well... we need it all. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats really intresting is based on how i last read it (which was a while ago), i believe it'd allow us to create custom formated DPLs that included parts of the article (so automatically updating lead of last published articles. that'd be especially cool on obscure portals). Bawolff ☺☻ 08:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact on most portals that should be used. Especially the geographic ones. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 08:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We simply can't have DPL2 it is too resource-intensive. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Spoil sport. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I *did* write a boolean engine for DPL which was not resource intensive once upon a time. DPL2 is not actually necessary. - Amgine | ^t 01:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Install now!!! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 01:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. You create a bug requesting the new functionality, preferably with a patch providing the code necessary and explaining how it works and why it's important. Then the devs will review the submission and code. For example, here's my patch adding alphabetic listing to DPL, which is part of Bug 14971. - Amgine | ^t 01:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits done to Bob Barr article

I've made some edits to the article. It should be okay now. --WNewsReporter (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Invitational Games for the Deaf, Taipei 2008

Noticed on your reviews, should I list all the medalists from all events as the officials personally gave me after doing necessary requests to clarify the winning countries? Regards. Brock ^contact... 09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that you had to list them all. It was just that you listed that 2 countries had won medals in two classes - but not which country won which class. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Two largest known prime numbers...

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've incorporated several changes that you have suggested. Could you please tell me if there is anything else that should be done?

Thanks! --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Invisible Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		"The Invisible Barnstar is to be awarded to users who make significant and helpful contributions to the project, but keep to the background without seeking recognition or reward for their work." (WP:BARN) Thanks for all the unsung work you've been doing behind-the-scenes reviewing articles. Yours, Cirt (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you much. This one is going to be harder to fit on my main page wall. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 08:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian U.S. presidential nominee Bob Barr trying to remove running mate Wayne Allyn Root, reports say

Could you do a peer review for the article above? Thanks. --WNewsReporter (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Always. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award you the reviewers barnstar for continuing to review loads of articles

Anonymous101^talk 18:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for all the reviews! :) --Poisonous (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Congratulations! Cirt (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the London Havel premiere article?

Hello. I added my first article to the English Wikinews - London Stages Václav Havel's Leaving as First Place Outside Czech Republic. I do not know, what are the rules here, however I expected that the article will appear on the Culture and Entertainment Portal or so. Instead it got tagged Abandoned, Disputed and Article assistance needed. I absolutely don't know, what does the "abandoned" tag mean. The template says the article is incomplete, but what is incomplete on it? Making of the Czech language article took me some half-hour, the translation to English some hour, and I feel really sad seeing, that the only thing that would happen to the article, is adding one template without any explanation and possible deletion. Thank You for Your answer and for Your help. Okino (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We'll I'm unsure what your procedure on the Czech wikinews, but once you complete writing an article here you need to put it into {{review}}. Someone (independent of the writer) will review the article then either {{publish}} it if they feel it is done, or put it back into {{develop}} for additional work. Until it has gone through that proccess, it will show up as "in development" and will now show up as published. So after sitting there (in development) for some time, I tagged it as {{abandoned}}. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 00:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This kind of reviewing is not a common process - I have several edits on English Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and the likes and I have not met it there yet, maybe You could give some hints to any new editor, because the procedure is really confusing. Thanks, Okino (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not. But we use alot of tools that aren't used anywhere else (like FlaggedRev's, which is used on de.wp). We have Wikinews:Writing an article - but it looks like it hasn't been updated in a while with our new procedures. I will take a look at that later and update it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a bit more copyediting. I left a brief note with one example here: Talk:London Stages Václav Havel's Leaving as First Place Outside Czech Republic. This sort of stuff should have been caught before it was published, IMO. Cirt (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dont look at me, I didn't publish it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 08:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just one more short remark to the novice's view of the process - try considering some improvement of the {{abandoned}} template to provide better information for the user. Maybe some rewording or some useful link to explanation, because it really frightened me and possibly can frighten any other new editor. Okino (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawthorn wins 2008 AFL Grand Final

Thanks for the comments on the peer review --RockerballAustralia (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Sport should not go in main lead - especially when virtually nobody in the northern hemisphere knows what AFL stands for. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Personally I always thought lead 2 was a more prominent position than lead 1. It stands out like the main headline on a newspaper. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't wikilink leads

Front page leads are not wikilinked. Ever.

Also, you should not have a protected talk. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Good to know, I'll make sure to drop wikilinking for leads. Frankly, I wasn't sure. I'd seen it done from time to time, and no one has made mention of it to me until now.

I semi-prot'd it for a few weeks because of cross-wiki. Things seem to have died down though, I'll remove it if you like. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

abandoned?

I havent abandoned Libricide plans on ice at University of Oslo; I am waiting on more information from a source. How do I prevent it from being deleted? John Vandenberg (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed {{abandoned}} for now. Generally though if there are no "new" sources (within the last 3 days) it is considered "Too old" to be published. But, if you got a plan, go for it. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)