User talk:AZOperator

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton Hazing Scandal
It looks as if you're putting a great deal of effort into something likely unpublishable. You were warned about this, and really should have asked questions and gotten advice from the community at that time. Trying to write a massive, highly ambitious article without understanding anything about the project is a recipe for disaster, and you seem to be heading in that direction. --Pi zero (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pi zero, I gave your suggestions and guidance its do diligence. My plan was to use this draft as an organizational tool, not necessarily for publishing unless it would be a "What We Know" kind of thing which is likely outside the scope of Wikinews. As you can see there is a lot of information. Since it is listed basically as a draft, I can get all my ducks in a row before writing 'fresh' materials regarding the coming events, when they happen. It appears the Wikipedia guys are also re-evaluating their stance on acknowledging the events, but I have no way of knowing what they are going to decide. I'm going to differ to them on the acknowledgement, but make sure it is factually correct, this draft makes it easier. Hoped that cleared up a few things. Let me know if there is anything else I can clear up. AZOperator (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hm. I see.  Not likely to go to waste, then.  Wants further thought. It looks very encyclopedic.  Wikinews mainspace may not be an appropriate place for it.  Do you have in mind to use it for some Wikinews article, or are you using Wikinews as a safe haven while things get sorted out on Wikipedia?  From a Wikinews perspective I'd point out that our writing style is quite different (a lot simpler, really); we don't usually divide an article into sections, we don't use footnotes.  Our approach to neutrality is profoundly different (and we don't, alas, have a good document explaining it, still after all this time, our NPOV page explaining embarrassingly poorly), based largely on sticking to objective facts, often through attribution.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Pi zero, Honestly, a little of both. AG Bill Montgomery is going to file charges against the administrators separately. However, if I am reading the Federal Laws concerning RICO cases right, this topic will be on the national stage since it has never happened before. I also have seen the documented evidence which leads to RICO. That would be the news story. As for the rest, AG Montgomery has made several statements he wants this to go to court. Possible political reasons or because it is the right thing to do. The AG does not have to give anyone a plea bargain, even if the presiding judge requests it. AZOperator (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that, since you don't understand Wikinews and are creating material that's a sort of cross between opinion pieces and encyclopedia articles (neither of which we publish here), your use of the project is kind of web-host-y. --Pi zero (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No one gets everything right the first time around. I'll look at the submitted piece again, and try to address your concerns. I usually don't usually write short documents of any type due to my career training. Again the Hamilton piece is not intended for publishing, but I do intend to write an article of St. vs. Thomas in late January. Shortly after that the St. vs. Administrators will be put in motion. It's not wasted effort for any future articles. AZOperator (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have a notorious initial learning curve here. My concern for the long-term prospects is partly that you really need practice beforehand if you're hoping to hit a mark in late January (and how much practice, varies from individual to individual).  Our usual vehicle for in-advance development is a "prepared" article, but even that doesn't apply well if the material isn't shaping up toward the right form.  (It's not at all uncommon, actually, that veteran Wikinewsies never did manage to get their first submission published &mdash; but if they went on to become veteran Wikinewsies it's like that first submission was a serious learning experience.)  --Pi zero (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikinewsies - that's a good one. I'll remember that name! AZOperator (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * :-) The standard term.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought it was just a cute name for intro to Wikinews. AZOperator (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * newsie. (Interesting quote, there.)  --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If only Shakespeare had todays dictionary available to him. Begs the question, what would Romeo and Juliet sound like. Merry Christmas Pi Zero AZOperator (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure he didn't need it and did better without. Merry Christmas AZOperator.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Football article
For starters: Hi! I'm Paul......I've been around for a while. I've been on a slight hiatus of-late (nothing dramatic, really just busy stuff IRL). Any-hoo.....sorry about your football article. I will say (without hesitation) that being here has helped improve my writing TO AN ASTOUNDING DEGREE. I'd done plenty of 'college writing' and 'work writing' but journalistic writing really demands that you say it all QUICKLY! Please stick with it. If you like journalism, you're welcome here, I promise! You cannot get too vested in any one article, though. We function as a 'NEWS ORGANIZATION' (or try like heck to do so)..... Good luck! --Bddpaux (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * talk Paul, thank you for the warm welcome. Yeah, the journalistic writing style can be frustrating, I am equating it to poetry - where every single word has a purpose. As for the football story, I think I have found something. Nathaniel Thomas, the student charged as an adult, his father appears to have a lengthy criminal record. His mother has a bankruptcy case - I don't know if it was resolved. Its promising, but I am sure you know they do not always pan out. So, thank you Paul and I hope to work with you someday down the road. AZOperator (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Found an unknown fact in major hazing investigation
Pi zero, Bddpaux I found a significant piece of information that has never been reported on in the Hamilton High School Hazing Scandal. Nathaniel Thomas lives with his mother, Felicia Gillespie, yet there is the other half - the father. After some sleuthing through court documents, I found his father Leo Dawn Thomas. Normally children that commit sexual crimes have a person near them whom have committed sex crimes in the past, whether or not they get caught. Leo Dawn Thomas (whom also goes under the name Leo N. Thomas or Leo E. Thomas) has a significant criminal history just in Arizona. I am still trying to crack if anything happened in Louisiana. Here is what I found:

I understand this goes back to 1998, but he was a sex offender for Nathaniel Thomas entire life. It has never been reported before and the timeline proves that. How do I move forward with this kind of information? Do I move forward with this? Or, send it to the traditional media?

Liability and use of Wikinews
I'm letting you know of an admin action I'm about to take, and my reason for it. I'm going to delete What Really Happened with the Hamilton High School Football Program, and possibly also hide some bits of content on this page. Maybe a brief undelete would be allowable for you to store your work in some off-wiki (and, by my strongly recommendation, non-public) place; I'm hoping you have the material somewhere else already so that an undelete won't be necessary, because frankly the material makes me very uncomfortable.

You've been putting a lot of material on that page, including &mdash;it has been pointed out&mdash; lots of names, and you've been open about planning to have this material sitting for quite some time on Wikinews without undergoing the prompt, rigorous review that is our way of imposing quality control on our output. We can't vouch for unreviewed material, and in this case all that naming is worrisome and would require extremely careful consideration. Until you're reason to submit for review, I see it as inappropriate to use Wikinews for prolonged storage of unvetted material. --Pi zero (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You'll understand, I hope, this makes me nervous, and the problem here is exactly that the material hasn't been vetted and, as a practical matter, can't be vetted as there's far too much of it for us to do that, especially when it isn't even an actual submitted article. --Pi zero (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I want to add to Pi's comment: While the information has been deleted, but it can be retrieved on a need-to-know basis. If you need a particular link of a source, or a table for reference; the information can be retrieved. I am not a lawyer, but I am the one who advised Pi Zero to do something about this. We do want the truth to come out and we do not intend to deny you access to any previously stored materiel. The bottom line is, I had some concerns, and Pi felt they were worrisome, if not valid. Cheers and Happy New Year. P.S. Ping me as I am not always on Wikinews. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SVTCobra (talk • contribs) 06:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Pi zero Please undelete it for 24 hours. I would like to maintain the formatting elsewhere. AZOperator (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I have restored the content to a subpage so that you can continue your work. User:AZOperator/Sandbox. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just so everyone is clear on what this means. You are allowing me to retain my Sandbox indefinitely - with the rules of Wikinews observed. The sandbox will remain disputed, and I definitively prove the names referenced do not violate my disclaimer and the strictest relevancy to the content, in a timely basis. Please confirm. AZOperator (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not say that. Nor would I be the sole arbiter of any such decision. You asked for 24 hours, and I think that's fair. Anything beyond that would have to be a consensus decision. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and this is how you use the Ping template. --SVTCobra 17:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know about the template, keyboard wasn't cooperating with me head. The confirmation was to avoid such misunderstanding. Thank you. AZOperator (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hamilton case
archive Hi. I am going to work on your latest article. I need one suggestion from you as to a good, reliable source for background information. We are introducing this saga to our readers for the first time, keep in mind. So far, I have this. Is that comprehensive? Do you have a better one? Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * To be honest with you KSAZ is the worst source. They have had multiple miss-representations on the topic and don't retract their errors for days. This one is from KPHO a CBS channel that has great info plus an exclusive interview with the person that initiated the whole investigation. If you want to introduce it to your readers - this is by far the best one. Here

Image uploads
Where did those images come from? We need to know, or we can't even judge whether or not they are elligible for fair use. --Pi zero (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Working on it. I can only move so fast. AZOperator (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Syria chemicals attack: comment added
--Gryllida 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Story marked as abandoned, to be deleted in two days if work does not resume. Gryllida (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikischim
I'm thinking your comment at  was probably meant to go to  ? --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will make that right. AZOperator (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Collaboration on a news story is tricky: usually lead by a single author, and where a second author is helping, they got to be readily available (close to real time); otherwise freshness may escape and the collaboration may hinder the story from being published. --Gryllida 03:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

and in the corporate world a lot of companies use Sharepoint as a document management tool for the sole reason you can do live-time edits. Literally you can see someone else typing. I am guessing the WikiFoundation would have to approve that kind of software change. AZOperator (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I for one wouldn't want it. --Pi zero (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I also don't believe that would address the fundamental problems with news collaboration. (If anything, it might make some of the problems worse.)  --Pi zero (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Writing with a coworker you know is one thing, working with some anonymous person entirely different. AZOperator (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: American student, David Hogg denies 'crisis actor' conspiracy claim involving Florida school shooting
If I am not mistaken, this is abandoned and may be deleted in two days if work does not resume. You may rewrite it to focus on a recent development, or userify, or wait for it to be deleted. Thank you. --Gryllida (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted. May be restored on request if there is a follow-up. --Gryllida (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Syria: fighting in East Ghouta continues after UN resolution on 30-day truce
Marked as abandoned, to be deleted on March 7 (in 2 days) if work does not resume. --Gryllida (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: US: Nor'easter claims Washington's tree
Corrected 'guests' to 'gusts'.

It would be nice to expand more on the 'why', clarify the storm spread and timing.

Is it possible to find freely licensed photos?

--Gryllida (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Published by Pi zero; review comments and history of changes made during review. --Gryllida (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: US: Police radio transcripts reflect confusion and inaccuracies in officer's actions
Hello.

I apologize for the delay. Given the lack of clarity in the sources themselves, it is a challenging story. Please see review comments.

Thank you. Gryllida (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A new comment on refocus edit timing. --Gryllida (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Review comments added. Great work on keeping notes of the timing. Again sorry for the unhelpful delay, I believe that pointing out the attribution problem (or even fixing it) could have been done days ago, if someone (like me or anyone else) was paying more attention to the newsroom. --Gryllida (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Links in articles
Hello. I just wanted to point out it is unnecessary (and actually frowned upon) to link to the same thing every time it is mentioned in an article. It is only necessary to do it once. For example, once you have linked school resource officer and in parenthesis identified it as SRO, there is no longer a need to link it every time you use the term SRO. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I will address that. Thank you. AZOperator (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed most, if not all, from the article already. Just keep in mind for the future. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification of deletion request
I am sorry to inform you, I had to nominate the below images for deletion. We briefly talked about them on the article's collaboration page, so this may not be a total surprise for you. For more information on this, please see WN:DR where the files are listed. There, you can object and/or explain why you feel they should be considered fair use. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * File:Nikolas Cruz campus movements.png
 * File:Suspect Movement in Building 12.png

Yeah, I didn't think they were public domain when I found them on USAToday. I'm just a bit surprised that someone was able to post those images to the commons, without them being discovered they were originally from the USAToday network.

I am not familiar with the mapping system for Wikinews. Could you point me in the direction of someone using it effectively or capture the school and surrounding area. AZOperator (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I will poke around for a satellite photo. Well, anybody can upload to Commons just like here. I do think they must have deleted them on Commons, because I couldn't find them. Not that it matters, but I think they are from Sun-Sentinel and not USA Today. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sun-Sentinel falls into the USAToday network. USAToday is like ClearChannel is radio and television. A monopoly. AZOperator (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a free satellite image, but this OpenStreetMap should serve just as well as a basis for the diagram of movements. I thought Sun-Sentinel was Tribune Media and USA Today was Gannett. Anyways, good luck, --SVTCobra 20:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

US: Pulse nightclub shooter's wife acquitted on all charges
Adding categories to the article is helpful; saves reviewer time. Well, some reviewers might be lenient, but if I find article submitted for review without any attempt to include relevant categories, I would swap review with cats. If you are short on time, and can not, leave a note on talk; also, when you have time, and if it was not done, do it. •–• 12:01, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Slipped my mind. AZOperator (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Deadly fire below US President's Trump Tower residence
Congratulations, the article was published. Green Giant (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

under review
Please key an eye out for the under review tag. I'm currently reviewing Scottish man avoids prison over 'grossly offensive' joke on YouTube‎. If you spot something (yes, even that missing word), leave a note on the talk page; the review gadget makes a fuss to remind the reviewer to reader the talk page carefully before submitting a review. --Pi zero (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't see it until it was too late. AZOperator (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

US: Final respects paid to former First Lady Barbara Bush at Houston funeral
Is there anything you want to copy over for a prepared obituary for Bush the Elder before this one gets deleted? He has been released from the hospital so his passing might not be as imminent as it previously seemed. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Nope, clean house of some articles that are out of date and no clue when a refresh will happen anytime soon. AZOperator (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

abandonment
A handy trick: when marking an article abandoned, use

which automatically expands to a call to abandoned with the current date specified. --Pi zero (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do, thank you. Just clearing out some old articles with no refresh insight. AZOperator (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Votings
There are a couple open items at WN:RFP and WN:DR which need a few more people to weigh in. I noticed you hadn't voted yet. If you have the time ... --SVTCobra 15:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am comfortable where I am at the current moment, but thank you for the consideration. AZOperator (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant, please vote. I wasn't nominating you for anything. --SVTCobra 16:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now I am really motivated to vote. Honestly I don't get into the politics of open source projects or internal operations. AZOperator (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself, but I wouldn't quite call it politics. And I wasn't trying to be insulting, you had recently indicated you didn't want to be nominated for reviewer, so I was just clarifying that I wasn't making a nomination against your will. --SVTCobra 16:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm does not translate over places like this, I was being sarcastic. I don't have time to make an educated vote on anything, therefore not voting is the best option. AZOperator (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe my sarcasm detective was a little off. Recently, people have tended to get insulted by everything I say or do. --SVTCobra 16:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the last White House Correspondence Dinners for Bush 43 had his alter ego talking. "Some people call me arrogant, I will not dignify that with a response. Hell' screw them." Time for you to just say, "screw them". AZOperator (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

under review
Screw those who can’t handle sarcasm; but don’t screw reviewers who are reviewing the article. Luckily, nothing bad happened. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Stacey Abrams becomes first black woman to gain major U.S. party nomination for governor of Georgia
Hey there. Did you notice the under review template? Do not edit the article at this stage, please. If you see something that needs to be changed, put it on the collaboration page. I will read all those comments before my final pass/fail. --SVTCobra 00:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I know the under review template means, at the time I did not see it, it may have been a realtime edit issue. Another person posted something about sarcasm, I'm not very sure what they talking about in that regards. As far as I am concerned, me and the reviewers have a relatively good relationship - so I got only blanks on that. AZOperator (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * a "good" relationship with the reviewer is not a valid reason to screw the reviewer while they are reviewing -- seriously, I expected you to get the thing that you had said earlier this week. •–• 22:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not intended to be malicious, like removing an entire article or inserting profanity which I have seen by others on certain articles. I have not been told I “screwed” anyone, much less a reviewer. Any edits I try to make are for the betterment of the articles. Regardless the point on editing during review was noted, a rather simple and non-divisive admission. It does however dawn on me that Acagasta is wishing to scorn me for something probably unrelated. Nevertheless, I have business to attend to for the next few days so I will have only a few moments to drop in. AZOperator (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

US: Evidentiary documents released in Golden State Killer case
There's been some wondering amongst reviewers, lately, whether it's better to fix stuff that's, in principle, simple enough to fix without disqualifying oneself, or use a not-ready to require the reporter to fix it. Long-term, of course, our goal is for reporters to take over more and more of these tedious tasks, to conserve review labor. At any rate, in this case I fixed some things (see what I did, in the article history) and left a note for you about some other things. --Pi zero (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Spam du jour
Our spam follows trends. Pornography, of course. But also agriculture supplies, apartments in some country where English isn't a major language, whatever. In the past 24 hours or so there's been a definite trend toward sex toys. --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice! Are they mainly Trolls or bots? AZOperator (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My guess is bots. Such things routinely have a great deal of garbage in them; I've never really understood why.  It seems a spam trend should result from someone saying they'll pay for hits on a certain site; either making the offer on some forum, resulting in multiple parties attempting to draw hits, or making the offer to a single party who brings multiple sites to bear.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have heard of hackers testing bot nets on ‘lesser’ sites before going after something larger. When I met with CYBERCOM about two years ago, they were scared shitless of that and the FBI feared the going dark from encryption tools. Brave new world. AZOperator (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They are usually bot accounts, often of the "one edit and forget" variety i.e. once they’ve posted their "infomercial" they will not interact any further. If you see such a page, the best option is to tag it with something like . —Green Giant (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, lets get going on getting rid of all the dildos! AZOperator (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

== Abandoned & moved to user space: Singapore: US and North Korean leaders signing joint statement at denuclearization summit ==

May be useful for your reference. --Gryllida (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is a far possibly. It looks like North Korea is going underground where the satellites cannot see what he is up to and he just offed one of his generals. AZOperator (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change to the leading paragraph
--Gryllida (talk) 02:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Facebook sets new single day stock loss in history
Alas, that we didn't catch this one in time; however, please do note my review comments on this one, so hopefully the bit of benefit to future articles can be salvaged. --Pi zero (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I hope I'll be able to review the refreshed article tomorrow morning (at which time it should still be tolerably fresh, despite the perishable nature of the story); I don't think I can do a review this evening. If it runs much longer than tomorrow morning, it's likely to lose freshness &mdash; making it, of course, a somewhat risky story for Wikinews, since it's got such a short shelf life.  But, things may yet work out. We'll see. --Pi zero (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying. It just dawned on me in the afternoon to have a look at the charts. AZOperator (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If things go well, it's a neat solution to the problem of the article having lost freshness. --Pi zero (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Personally I stay away from high priced stocks. Try BAC, TVPC or ZNGA. I do own some FB but finding the diamond in the rough is my skill and curse. AZOperator (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, on review there was clearly an extensive difficulty with analysis, which is against our neutrality policy. I tried to elaborate in my latest review comments.  You need to work on the news-neutrality principle; I, for my part, have been wanting to write an essay on news neutrality &mdash;I'm not the only long-time Wikinewsie deeply dissatisfied by our NPOV policy page that contains the ideas but makes them hard to pick out of the distracting clutter&mdash; but it's remarkably hard to explain clearly (unless, of course, one already had a good explanation of it, which would make explaining it look easy). --Pi zero (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Notification of deletion request
I have requested deletion of your article on Senator McCain. As an aside, my listing it there will actually cause it to be preserved an additional 7 days, since it was previously marked as &#8220;abandoned&#8221; instead. Please comment on the deletion requests page. 2600:1003:B01E:1070:0:8:5AD6:B701 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think a request for deletion on the grounds that a prepared article is about an event that hasn't happened yet is appropriate. --Pi zero (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Under review
As the notice says, please do not edit the article directly while it's actively under review. Although, candidly, the review is not going well and atm I'm considering how far to take this before not-ready'ing. --Pi zero (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it was case of editing at the same time deal. Sorry, I will hit the refresh more often. AZOperator (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * These things happen. Another technique I find useful... if I realize there might be a conflict... is to use the "show changes" button to see whether anything else has been changed, when I'm about to commit my edit. --Pi zero (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Grand jury reports 300 priests abused thousands of victims in Pennsylvania, US over decades
I'm about to do a run-through, to see how things are. However, it looks like the Vatican finally got around to saying all that is a bad thing, which probably means the article will want a refresh; my run-through is meant to see whether the existing material is sound to start with. If the existing material were unsound, one could imagine investing effort in a refresh only to find the new material being dragged down by the old. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Turns out I was still finding a high density of verification problems; review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Fossil genome article
This imho has turned into an interesting discussion of the architecture of a lede. --Pi zero (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I think that is a more theoretical and less about the article. AZOperator (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have time...
--Gryllida (chat) 11:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your Request for a heart-to-heart discussion
You have requested for a discussion of some concerns you have. I am not one not one to wait, since the chance of forgetting increases with time. As always I will keep an open mind and take all comments under considerations. Yes, the McCain story had become "my baby", if you will, and I realize that now and will work towards catching it early. AZOperator (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear on that point (we may be understanding each other, but, being cautious), most Wikinews articles have just one author; that's usual and usually desirable. My concern is with becoming so committed to a particular article that one can't let go, which Bddpaux once warned against with the phrase "don't marry the article"; their current phrasing of the principle is "Get it, write it, submit it, move on" (User:Bddpaux). Shatever I am going to do about the McCain article, I mean to do before the heart-to-heart thing, and leave your ping on my notifications meanwhile. --Pi zero (talk)
 * Yeah I got a little to close with this one, fascinating historical stories have always seem to catch me. I have been hoping someone would work with me on an ambitious article to see how it is done, but I was thinking some were being critical for the sake of being critical, with no intentions of producing a great article - your traditional rat hole. As always, I have valued your insights with the style. AZOperator (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back, AZOperator
Hi AZOperator :-)

Thanks for coming back and for following the WikiLeaks person story. I really appreciate it.

--Gryllida (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the gracious welcome back. Classes are rough right now as the semester comes to a close but found sometime to chill, even though it is a great non-snowy 78*F this morning, and contribute. AZOperator (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I learned that the Monday the 22nd is not only Easter Monday, but rather, Earth Day. A somewhat pleasant observation. In any case, either of these can be a nice excuse for some food; in warmish summer, I like to cook chapati. (Here in Australia it is middle of fall, the temperatures being the same 78 degrees F nevertheless, warmer than the usual.) Gryllida (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Talkback HERE
--Gryllida (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've written an archive script User:Gryllida/js/archive-talk.js which adds 'archive' button to each section at your talk page. This moves a section to /Archive sub page. If you want to use it, add
 * importScript('User:Gryllida/js/archive-talk.js');
 * to Special:MyPage/common.js. Gryllida (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * to Special:MyPage/common.js. Gryllida (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * to Special:MyPage/common.js. Gryllida (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

So I had a look at some of your edits but there were timeline issues. It looks like Monday is just an intro hearing and the 30th is the real deal is he going or not.

Re: US court enters formal charges against alleged Colorado school shooters
Hi AZOperator :-)

In the first para I'd suggest to add the name of the court and its location. --Gryllida (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I just don't want the first sentence to become a paragraph. Take a look at it now and take a crack at it. AZOperator (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you working on a refocus? Gryllida (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As a side note, the review queue is full. If you want to help others with their drafts, see Newsroom, or User:Gryllida/welcome a bit: in the latter you can sign up to receive nearly immediate notifications of all newly created drafts if you select 'Developing' as the topic to monitor. Gryllida (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew there were other articles under development in the newsroom, but like all of us here we contribute to where we have interest lay. I didn't find anything that I liked and that article was a severely underreported story at the national level. Unfortunately I can only intermittently contribute for the next couple of weeks. Later -- AZOperator (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Media outlets issue retractions in Dutch teenagers' death
Hi. Troubles with this article; I wrote up a review comment. One of the difficulties concerned the "when" of it, and therefore (given I didn't get to it sooner than I did) bears on freshness; but there was also difficulty with neutrality, which seems to me to be something you should work on in your Wikinews reporting: you tend to try to report what you believe happened in situations where you should be stepping back and reporting on the controversy without taking sides in it. Such has been my impression. --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (Interesting story, btw. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As always, I appreciate the input and will try my best to improve on it, your efforts do not go unnoticed. This story was fumbled form the beginning by me and the general media so the vague focal point is expected and probably should not have been designed that way. Instead I think it probably would have been best to have written this based on the focal event of the parents issuing a statement. I would appreciate your thoughts on the shifted focal event as a hypothetical.
 * Not to makeup excuses about my failings, but I really did not have the time to give it the full attention that it required. As for the NPOV, I can see how the last two paragraphs would give you that opinion. When writing it, it everything I had not to put Dr. Kevorkian into this which would is a giant leap over the NPOV line. Thank you. AZOperator (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The neutral way to handle the Maine information would be to remove the commentary at the front (looks like that would be the first thirteen words of the second-to-last paragraph), and simply present the facts. Achieving Wikinews neutrality is usually not technically difficult, consisting mostly of omitting editorial commentary and including attribution. Focusing on the parents' statement would produce a different article, of course; any discussion of retractions by news media, further down in the article, would need a clearly explained connection to the statement. I have great sympathy for the problem of limited time.  One suggestion I might offer: with practice, Wikinews-neutral articles can become quite easy to write, because one leaves out all the "analysis" and just states objective facts.  Look at what's taking you the most time-and-effort, and ask whether it can (or even should) be omitted. --Pi zero (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion
You said (on the talk page of the Wikileaks article that's going away now), "If only we had a way of creating a repository of known facts so that when stories like this come around they can be pulled up with ease." One thing to do, in that direction, is to write small articles. Small articles are far more likely to get published than large ones; the advantages compound: they take less time-and-effort to write so they can be queued up sooner, providing more time for the rest of the process to work; they're far more attractive targets for reviewers; they take less time to review; and they're even more likely to pass when they do get reviewed. And once they've been published, that material exists permanently in our archives and can be drawn on very easily by simply invoking it as related news. This is, I'm given to understand, a standard technique in professional journalism: you start with small articles about parts of a story, and gradually accumulate a body of pre-vetted material so that each subsequent article can get longer very inexpensively. After a while, you can build up to really impressive articles without ever requiring a large review investment for any one article.

Iirc you've sometimes tended to try to write very ambitious articles. Small articles could be a way to get larger amounts of material published, over time. --Pi zero (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Brazil angle
It does seem to me the Brazil angle would want to be a separate article. It also has some difficulties; but, as I say, that should likely be separate. --Pi zero (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not working with much from the original. The original was dreadfully written and would never had been published. I figured short piece, may not have Brazil in the lead but get to it quick was the best route. The original was so terrible. AZOperator (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi AZOperator
Saw you wrote some interesting stories lately. Some of them about politics I was curious to see, about events that I have little knowledge about. Thank you for bringing that up.

It looks like the stories became not fresh anymore, as the review queue was full. Perhaps, while looking for a refocus in the cases where it is possible, you would like to also help out by copy-editing new drafts submitted by others? This could reduce reviewing times, and help you (as well as the new authors!) gain news writing practice. This could be a kind and apt thing to consider.

There is a helper notification tool for this, that may work well by email (if you use it and receive notifications from there). To read more and sign up, see here.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please don't create A and NOT A articles
Hi, AZOperator. While I appreciate you working on the articles, please do not create two different articles which are stack opposite of each other. If you would prefer, create an article 2020 US Presidential Elections results announced and then rename it to how it the results turn out to be. While one is the opposite of other, either one is clearly a hoax. For the love of sanity, we don't want everyone jumping to create articles of each possible candidate. "neither can live while the other survives". 103.48.105.219 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope you do realise '/' in titles link them to the subpage. •–• 19:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Uggg, forgot about that. AZOperator (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought those are considered to be &#8220;prepared stories&#8221;? 108.31.207.214 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Prepared stories are fine.....but they need to be managed well and QUICKLY deleted to minimize needless fluff around here. And: a slash [/] can make things super weird around these parts!--Bddpaux (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for help?
Hi, I created a coronavirus vaccine article when the FDA advisory panel voted to approve a coronavirus vaccine. It was declined as stale a few days after the FDA granted emergency-use authorization. I then updated it within minutes of when the FDA advisory panel voted to authorize a second vaccine, and again within minutes of when the FDA officially authorized it, but the article was declined as stale a few days later. I would appreciate it if reviewers could please decline articles based on the merits (bad writing, etc.) rather than waiting a few days after the news and then declare it "stale" on procedural grounds. Seems more like how a court would decide something, than news-editing. Can you please help? 108.31.207.214 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reaching out and I will be taking a few moments to come up with some strategies for moving forward if there are any. My first and foremost piece of advice is to create an account on Wikinews such that we could communicate faster and more precisely. Secondly, everyone here is a volunteer doing this in their freetime so give them some credit, it takes a lot of work to check all the facts. Lastly, the freshness policy is 3 days with very few exceptions such that the articles remain relevant. I will have a look at the article and all the article related things will be addressed in the talk page. Thanks you again for reaching out and do not let one article discourage you. AZOperator (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

talkback
Hi AZOperator, you have a new message here. (The newly rolled out 'reply' button doesn't seem to automatically ping you in the edit summary, unfortunately; I presume you would have otherwise not have received any notification?). Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It has been a long time since I have been contributing due to good old fashion life. I'll have a look at it. AZOperator (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)