User talk:Bobbokins

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Centrelink Website Failing Amongst Welfare Reforms
Hi. Please take a look at WN:PILLARS for an overall sense of how Wikinews works. Our articles are objective, thoroughly sourced, and written for an international audience (among other things). --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey there, I just added a draft of this article, and would like someone to collaborate with me. I believe this topic is especially relevant and newsworthy as the new senate sat today and the budget is a hot topic in Australia. I was also thinking of adding some information from here: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/public-service/centrelink-still-failing-clients-ombudsman-says-20140429-37g84.html --Bobbokins (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I see why you're interested by the story.


 * It's possible the way to cover this overall story for Wikinews may involve some other focus than the particular one you've been using, of the web site having technical problems. Or, that focus may need to be approached differently.  I recall another Wikinewsie has remarked, "don't marry the article", by which is meant, pursue the overall goal of journalism rather than getting so wound up in the fate of a particular article that one isn't able to let it go when it doesn't pan out.  All experienced Wikinewsies have sometimes failed to get some particular article published.


 * As you might imagine, it's quite challenging to run a wiki news site. The very fact that anyone can contribute is hard to reconcile with the nature of journalism &mdash; which is to make sure everything is vetted before publication (drastically different from the way Wikipedia works).  We've worked out ways to do that, but one does have learn tactics to work with our system for best effect.  I've written about some of this in review comments on the article collaboration page.


 * The oddest thing about the Wikinews process is that each article has to be rigorously reviewed by an authorized reviewer &mdash; who is not "involved" in writing the article, which is to say, isn't a coauthor. This means the reviewer is experienced, and perhaps can be helpful with how to do things generally, but at the same time is forbidden from directly helping to write the article.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Light On The Hill Address 2014: Penny Wong Fumbles a Great Speech
Hi. See review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobbokins (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Hey, I also recorded the speech. Can I use that to corroborate my story?

Bobbokins (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC) hi there. Do you know how I can get someone else to review my article? Many thanks.


 * Major problems with the article include
 * It's not about something that just happened (not fresh).
 * It's not neutral (neutrality is a particular hallmark of ours; I'll try to be clearer about this on the article talk).
 * It's single-source, which is not allowed for a WN:synthesis article.
 * What would a recording bring to the table that isn't covered by the full transcript? We do allow WN:original reporting, although it's strongly recommended to learn synthesis writing first, as it enables you to get straight the basics of Wikinews writing before moving up to the additional complications involved in original reporting.  To some extent, original reporting can also stretch freshness (cf. WN:Newsworthiness), however, how much it does depends on the significance of the original input.  In this case it's not likely a recording of the speech would do very much, although it'd certainly be value added and I'd think it fair to add a few days (but we're not talking about a few days; it's been a week and a half).  --Pi zero (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobbokins (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC) You obviously have not read my article because my article mentioned many times that the speaker diverted from the speech, and only I have that information because I was on the grounds recording the event!

I need you to get someone else to review the article because your review is absolutely unsatisfactory.

My recording found interesting information not found in the transcript. Please read my article and you will see this.

Can you please get someone else to review my article.


 * I've gone to considerable trouble to given you lots of high-quality feedback, to help you to participate in the Wikinews project. You're evidently not listening; that's unfortunate, but it's primarily your loss.


 * If, as you say, there's a lot of stuff in the article that isn't in the sources, then that is yet another problem that would prevent publication. Everything in the article has to be verified during review from provided documentation.  See WN:PILLARS.  --Pi zero (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bobbokins (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC) you have refused to answer my question which is 'can you get someone else to review my work?'

Why are you ignoring my question?

Can somebody help me here? How can I make an abuse complaint?


 * The Wikinews community grants review privileges only to individuals experienced with our review principles and trusted to apply them fairly. If you understand our review principles and think I haven't been applying them fairly &mdash; or if you would like to understand our review principles better and have found my explanations unclear &mdash; you might ask at the assistance water cooler; the water cooler is linked on the navigation bar on the left-hand side of each Wikinews page.  (Tbh, your comments thus far indicate you don't understand how the project works.  I've been concentrating on trying to explain things you seemed not to understand, rather than encouraging the generally frowned-upon practice of reacting to a not-ready review by blaming the reviewer.)  --Pi zero (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)