Talk:UK police involved in stand-off with gunman Raoul Moat

I watched a live report on BBC news. Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 19:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Title
Raoul Moat is, literally, just over there as far as I'm concerned (I know folk from Rothbury). I rather doubt some of our other contributers know the name. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Tempo. That's much better. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not detained yet

 * Police have officially refuted earlier agency reports that there has been an arrest or a detention. As of now, he is apparently contained, with negotiations ongoing. PerryWhite (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cable
I haven't seen anything related to a cable on either BBC News or Sky News. I've removed it [as BBC Newcastle isn't as notable/reputable as Sky]. — μ 21:31, July 9 2010 (UTC)

OR Notes
I am logging here, notes from conversation with 2 amateur radio operators who were present with RAYNET during this incident. The notes take the form of entries from my station log, and will be transcribed in order to make sense. In these notes, I am referred to by my callsign, 26HS2018.


 * 26HS2018/G4STR - Operator name "Peter" Location is at lockdown. Roads closed and restricted, High Street, Church Street, Providence Lane, Bridge Street, Town Foot, Brewery Lane - NEAS (North East Ambulance Service) has been put on standby for casualty response. 2255BST
 * Operator change, Op name "Graham" - logged. Last message at 2301BST unit has been advised to remove itself from the area, reposition in safer location. Station has gone QRT to move.
 * 2310BST G3ZQM ACK(nowledged), information passed - Non essential personnel to keep 14300KHz free for transmission by emergency services and RAYNET only, all others to QRT (Cease transmissions) immediately.
 * (MORSE):2327BST LOG from G3ZQM via CW (Carrier Wave): 26HS2018 We're back now to 1000M. Police have given instruction that we may have to QRT and leave in a hurry.

BarkingFish (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Shots fired ?
See:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10583839.stm BBC Radio Newscastle was reporting same...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. BBC and Sky published police statement  that Moat killed himself at about 1.15 this evening.  Lets take the breaking news banner off this article, and copy and paste the background into a new one.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Google hosting
Despite reading how, in 2010, an agreement had been reached for Google to host Associated Press news content, and Josh Cohen, (Senior Business Product Manager at Google), Google-blogging how "Google and AP can work together to create a better user experience and new revenue opportunities", I have not yet found one reference source that uses their hosting service which doesn't produce the following error


 * 404. That’s an error.


 * The requested URL /hostednews/ukpress/article/????????.html was
 * not found on this server. That’s all we know.

Then again, even the about page for the service brings up the error About Google News

there is an example in this very article



So much for the "better user experience", and I am sure the "new revenue opportunities" belonged to no one but Google.

After my obvious confusion between the Associated Press and Press Association I found my answer in Google News and Google News Archive

Wicks Steve (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr, and this is Wikinews' fault how?
 * The agreement between the Press Association (PA) and Google is that the latter publicise PA by carrying their content on the Google news feed, not in the Google news archives. Instead, PA want to lock the content away again, and charge you per-view.
 * You've found a peer-reviewed Wikinews article on the event. Do you really need the archived PA article any more?
 * A more-constructive gripe would be that Google should have a landing page for such withdrawn articles, and we can't address that. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Why have you so arrogantly and sarcastically assumed that my comment placed any blame on Wikinews? I was merely pointing out that there are now many articles with unusable links, including this one. Are you always so quick to "piss all over" those who are just trying to share information that may prove helpful? If so, please let me know, so that I might rigorously check for, and scrutinise, any further contributions made by you, in order to afford you the same courtesy.

Wicks Steve (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, get off that high-horse; you look silly up there!
 * You chose to have a 'good-old-rant', which is - as I did - very-readily taken as a criticism of Wikinews. What are we supposed to do about it? As far as I'm concerned, nothing. The problem is not one Wikinews can address, and it does not qualify as "information that may be useful". This is not Wikipedia, where you can go off and find an alternative source; this is a news site, and the URL of the article we accessed at the time this was published is what is relevant. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear: The Sources section of a Wikinews article is not a list of useful references; it's a permanent of record of where the information in the article came from.  We don't change the record later.  The accuracy of that record is not affected by some of the links being dead; and "modern" Wikinews articles (2010 qualifies) are rigorously reviewed prior to publication, giving high confidence in verification from the sources at that time.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pi zero. I think we'e had the suggestion that we use sundry services which archive copies of these made in the past. I believe the problem highlighted there was that a 'risk' of abuse/manipulation comes in to play.
 * Using a wiki as a content management system (CMS) does not automatically mean a website works exactly the same as Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

To be clearer still, and the clue was in the title, my initial post was suggesting "Google hosting" might be considered by some, as an unreliable future source for any Wiki user. It is rather narrow minded to assume anything posted on Wikinews only relates to Wikinews. It just happened to make most sense to post here, as it contains the thing it was referencing. What are you supposed to do about it? Well, in future when you again find yourself with nothing useful to contribute, contribute nothing. Take things for what they are, they don't always have to be helpful to you alone to be of worth. Rather than look for opportunities to expose your inner bitch, find relief somewhere more appropriate, and despite the air being clearer up here, you might find that removing your head from your ass might help make yours a little clearer too.

Wicks Steve (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It amuses me that you fail to see the multiple ironies in your comment. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)