User talk:Deckdeck21

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
It appears you are a student at the University of Wollongong. The UoW student template goes on your userpage. Just copy and paste the code below and fill in the information. — Mike moral  ♪♫  08:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, after reading SMH links compiled to circumvent pending pay wall I would be rather interested to know whether you're an UoW student as well? Please take a closer look at what Mikemoral suggested or ask a question by clicking "Edit" at the right of this section, typing your question at the bottom, adding four tildes, and saving the page. Thanks and, at the risk of repeating, welcome to Wikinews. :) --Gryllida 09:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your SMH article review status
I reviewed it and left detailed review comments. Cheers. --Gryllida 10:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

ASIO hacked, blueprints stolen
Hi. Found not ready. Great to see OR undertaken. I've tried to provide extensive help about OR notes in my Review comments. Just a few . --Pi zero (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I've very sorry about this.  There's been a horrible screw-up with this article.  Honestly, in my years on Wikinews I don't think I've ever seen such a mess.  I'm not even sure what the path forward from here can be, but we'll try to sort it out, and keep you posted.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to make this known to you earlier, sorry. Completely confused as to why that lede was written and published. I updated the story this morning in light of the most recent developments hoping it wouldn't go stale. Apologies if I interfered in the review process. Please let me know if there's anything I need to do. --Deckdeck21


 * No, your edits seem to have been safely before review started, so I don't think anything you did interfered with the review. Mistakes were made during the review, and things didn't work the way they should have.  I suppose I should be blaming the reviewer, except that with all the time I spend on review, I have great sympathy for just how difficult review is.  We're trying to build tools to make both writing and reviewing easier, in our copious free time (it comes on top of the actual labor of writing-and-review).


 * To raise the alarm about something like this, I'd suggest a note on the article talk page, a note on one of the water coolers, and perhaps notes on some reviewers' user talk pages, certainly starting with the publishing reviewer's. --Pi zero (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted for next time. Thank you. Is it likely that the story is going to be re-reviewed and published? I can only imagine how long it takes to review an article - I don't want either of our hard work to go to waste! Please let me know! --Deckdeck21


 * Went I went to bed last night, there were two articles on the review queue; I fell asleep wondering if there was any way I could process both of those in the morning and then sort out this one. I get up this morning and there are six article son the queue.  I've noticed this, over time, about review supply and demand:  however much review labor we have available at a given time, demand for review always increases to exceed supply.  We'll see what happens.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution
Hello. Your article "Australian Security Intelligence Organisation website hacked, blueprints stolen" has been deemed abandoned, but is still viewable at User:Deckdeck21/Australian Security Intelligence Organisation website hacked, blueprints stolen. Thank you for your contribution. Remember that most articles from new contributors are not published and so there is no need to be discouraged. Just read Writing an article and follow the guidelines there and your next article will likely be published. Thanks again for your interest.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)