Talk:Puerto Rico power company cancels US$300 million Whitefish contract

There are power outages where I am (coincidence) so if this article goes unedited for too long, please go and finish it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Title change description
The word you want isn't "accuracy." It's "specificity." $ and US$ are equally accurate, but US$ is more specific. Implying that someone's work was inaccurate can mean that you think they were wrong or dishonest. Save that for when you mean it. "Specific" has fewer negative connotations. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Another useful word is "precision". --Pi zero (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, yeah. That works too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Eleventh grade physics: what is accuracy and what is precision? While it might be confused to have the same meaning, but if you ever thought how much is a dollar, you would have understood what I meant. US$ would help most of the readers accurately calculate how much the value is it in their currency. If you want to complain about my edit summaries, go on, do it all day . Let me help you, using IP, I edited a page and wrote “fix” which autocorrect changed to fix. Edit summaries helps other people know what it was about. (It is funny that someone who hardly cares to explain anything in the edit summaries, or even care to write is saying this) And you had mentioned you don’t understand Pi zeroes detailed comments, how would you come to know why I said that. FWIW, you were inaccurate, not specifying something like this, keeping things ambiguous is something I don’t like to see on Wikinews. So yes, I mean it. You would not know why I feel it is so important to mention, but, when it comes to currencies, try to be accurate. Like in Egypt, they use Pound. (Not your pound, though) it could convey incorrect information. (Oh and didn’t you say many “Americans” didn’t know about USA PR relationship) acagastya PING ME! 14:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please just think about what I said for a while. I mean that you are coming off as hostile when you do not need to. There's nothing incorrect or inaccurate about saying "red" about something that's scarlet, even if "scarlet" is more specific. (And yes I'm getting the definitions from science.) It looks like what's going on here is that you think this information needs to be given in the title and I think it's okay to wait until the reader gets to the lede.  That's a valid difference of opinion.  Just let what I said settle in your head for a while.
 * I think autocorrect might have changed something else to "fix" in this post. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is wrong, and not at all a good journalistic approach to hide information, even if it is a lie. Headlines attract the readers. For example, what if it was Zimbabwe dollars? I remember writing an article where ABC Australia was used as a source and no where in the article about acquisition of some US companies did they mention it was US dollar or the Australian one. For you, a dollar is a dollar. For me, a US dollar is close to ₹65 while Australian is under ₹50 and Canadian is just above ₹50. Things matter. I am being hostile? I am trying to Male Wikinews different from those other news orgs who gets more than 50% of the information because of click bait, and misleading/partial information. And I would do anything to avoid Wikinews becoming one of those. We need to be strict and disciplined for not letting wrong things going out. If you don’t see what journalism is, like the way I do, you may come to think about anything. Then it does not matter if Eddie Redmayne likes Imperial Klein Blue or not. You can say that colour-blind actor wrote 30k word thesis on “blue” (wouldn’t that be what you would’ve said, No-Maj?). Details matter. (This reminds me the time you added something unimportant or mundane to the title and now, you don’t want to do something that should have been there. acagastya PING ME! 17:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

tweaking Redmayne’s quote, “It’s amazing that a word can be so emotional”. acagastya PING ME! 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Or what I read on pi zero's talk: "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — 'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.— Samuel Clemens" acagastya PING ME! 11:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4359977 [Passed]
Regarding the AP sources, I did notice. They were not sufficiently independent to support the article alone, so I did not use them alone. This is one reason why I included the third source. But you will also notice that the two AP sources are not identical, and I drew information from both. I don't remember exactly which points came from which source off the top of my head, but I can check if you feel that's necessary.

I will not be asking you what every single one of your edit summaries means. Please assume that all of them have multiple plausible interpretations. If you feel like giving a one-word summary, do that. If you feel like giving a detailed summary, do that. "If it's unclear, ask" doesn't work here because I do not have any way of knowing whether the situation is unclear or not. Your meaning might seem obvious to me, and I might still be wrong about what you were getting at. There's no real way to tell. Just put whatever effort into your summaries that you think is reasonable and I will devote the appropriate amount of time and effort to reading them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * even if both the sources with AP content are different, it is NOT allowed. Think about it like a precaution against potential bias or incorrect stats or interpretation. acagastya PING ME! 04:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, it is of course possible to use two somewhat-different AP articles, but for any of the purposes that motivate our two-source rule, those two AP articles are effectively one article; and I was concerned that the article leaned quite heavily on that "one" article. Should I have let it through?  Not sure.  I did let it through.  One potentially disconcerting thing about Wikinews is that mistakes, and dubious choices, too are permanently preserved in the archive, and one learns from them moving forward instead of (as one would on Wikipedia) continuing to revise them indefinitely. The fact that the other article was also AP wasn't in the source citation, and that was really important information that should have been there. Darkfrog24, is it not evident that when I say to 'ask if it's not clear', that means ask if you perceive it to be unclear?  Evidently one can't rationally ask someone to "ask if you think you understand but actually don't".  I'm also concerned that you don't seem to realize the implications of telling a reviewer you won't bother to read what they tell you about the review; this suggests a deep gap in your understanding of the review process, and I'm trying to figure out whether I can explain that to you.  (I've long sensed there was a gap somewhere, so this may actually be a useful clue.)  --Pi zero (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right. I didn't consider the two articles independent of each other for corroboration purposes, so the New York Post was necessary rather than merely helpful.
 * I certainly did not mean to say that I don't bother to read your edit summaries but to be honest I don't do it every time. From my perspective, almost all of them are unclear, but that's how you write them.  It's simply not practical to ask either one of us to go to that much effort twenty times an article.  Go into detail when you feel like it.
 * I did pick something else up here too, but it's one of those times when asking the question might render you incapable of providing a useful answer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Or maybe you don't understand it. But when you say New York Post was necessary than merely helpful, you should know and follow that any article should not have sources which were not used, or heavily depends on sources by same publisher. acagastya PING ME! 12:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I see the disconnect: Yes I produce text for the Wikinews article based on information from each source or else I don't list that source. There have been times when I've edited or updated an article that was awaiting review and removed a source because I'd removed or replaced the text that it supported.  No I do not post sources that do not get used.  I know the review team has to read every one and I do not and would not waste your time like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)