User talk:Anonymous Writing

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

removing tags
please do not remove tags without addressing the concerns raised in them. if u think the concerns are not valid, discuss on the article talk page to reach a concensus on the issues. Doldrums 07:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I left the reason in my edit summary. The person that raised the concerns did not examine my sources or read the whole article before judging. I would have liked them to start from the beginning before  questioning the content. Anonymous Writing 07:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * please do not remove tags, and publish disputed articles. a number of editors have raised concerns over the content and fitness of this article. unless the concerns are addressed and there is a consensus to publish the article, please do not publish it. note that repeated reversions are considered edit warring and is frowned upon. (see Three revert rule. Doldrums 07:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted you, I thought my edit had not gone through due to a glitch in the system. I cannot edit Wikinews much at this time for reasons I cannot explain due to privacy issues. The story is not   abandoned, and do not delete it, please.

Also, "a number" is not accurate because I convinced the others to let me go ahead and publish the article, because only one editor's concerns have not been replied to until now, in the edit summary. I should not have to prove the legitimacy of an article to "editors" that refuse to read it, take one quick glance at it, and dismiss it as utter garbage. Those that know nothing will understand nothing. Read the article and become enlightened on the issue. Anonymous Writing 07:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I had been so busy writing this article I nearly abandoned food, sleep, water, and bathing. I stayed   awake for a week typing the article, thinking through my fingers and providing more than seventy sources to prove its legitimacy. Please do not throw the article recklessly into the waste bin, the memory hole, for it never to return. Anonymous Writing 07:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * a story in the mainspace is abandoned if it has not been worked on for several days and will be deleted for it. if u believe that the story can be "rescued", u can either start rewriting the article to address concerns (in which case it becomes un-abandoned) or copy the article to ur user-space (ur user page User:Anonymous Writing or a subpage of it) and work on it at leisure (while the mainspace article gets deleted). when the copy in ur userspace is ready for publication, it can be moved back to mainspace for publication. note that removing an abandoned tag without making any constructive edits to the article does not make it "unabandoned".


 * i appreciate that you have expended plenty of effort in creating this article, but the article still has to meet wikinews content guidelines to be published. as far as i can tell, me, User:Edbrown05, User:Fastfission, User:Brianmc have expressed concerns over this article. Doldrums 07:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I convinced Edbrown05 on the talk page of User:Leak watcher. As for Brian McNeil's complaint, that     an amateur working alone with enough persistence and patience can be as good as an expert was the            entire spirit behind a wiki, I always thought. I interpreted it as a complaint against the person that made another edit. That it is too long to read is not a valid complaint, I feel, and is merely a symptom of laziness. I broke            the article down into many sections so that the reader can keep coming back to it later between breaks. Anonymous Writing 07:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As for facts, nearly every fact is new in the context of the situation. Anonymous Writing 07:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Uhmm, taking exception Anon-No saying I was convinced. Actually, I was more convinced by FastFission and Brian McNeal who pointed out the need for the real news content of the article, the redaction, being the focus of the story.
 * As [think Paul Harvey] "for the rest of the story", I simply took interest out of that for the reinforcement of existing knowledge of this "news" surrounding the boring case... most people have lost giving a shit. And that's part of the problem, and part of the opportunity for this story. Heck, I say hold onto this for background info until a court decision. -Edbrown05 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There are tons of angles that could be given to the story. For one, that the CIA was able to get an exact transcript of the Woodward-Armitage phone exchange highlights a scenario in which whistleblowers would not be protected. I just stuck to the facts as much as possible and let the reader interpret. I could have split the 16 page article into many different news stories. Regardless, I've decided to circumvent the management of Wikinews and go directly to the U.S. Senate.

Also, EdBrown, I think the same program on your computer is the same one I found placed on mine. Is it WINSERVICE.EXE? I think someone might be watching us, but this would be a real paranoid conspiracy theory in itself. Anonymous Writing 08:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx, i'll follow up on that -Edbrown05 08:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)