User talk:Dendodge/Apr 11

Wackynews
Perhaps you should remove the category Wacynews from Celebrity bear Knut dies suddenly at the Berlin Zoo, since its addition there  was the reason I added it to Polar bear Knut's death linked to encephalitis in the first place. Thanks for being BOLD and resolving the viral issue. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just not entirely sure the death of a much-loved animal is entirely "wacky"—I'll go remove it from the other article now. :-) DEN  DODGE  15:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it seems Pi Zero already did it. DEN  DODGE  15:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of ACLU, EFF challenging US 'secret' court orders seeking twitter data
Thanks for your work on the review of this. want to run a pool on who objects to it getting FA status? ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Main page
I agree with your decision. Sometimes the main page seems to be all about a dead body found in so-and-so accidents in which people are killed. Little international coverage about other things that don't pertain exclusively to the UK or the US. Mattisse (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you a reviewer?
I noticed that you just made a change to Indian activist begins "fast-unto-death" hunger strike to end corruption. The article has something like five "pending changes" since it was published. An updated section has been added with news that happened after the article was published and three April 8 sources added that are after the date of publication on April 7.

So the article is becoming progressively screwed up, as when a reader looks at the article, they see the article with the pending changes implemented. Only one pending change (a spelling correction) is valid, plus maybe yours. (Did you adjust the layout based on the published article version or the version with all the pending changes?)

Regards, Mattisse (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Pi zero to care of it. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider
See my reasoning at Talk:Microsoft to release patches for 64 security flaws on Tuesday as well as the opinion of others who support 17 instead of seventeen, so consensus is for 17. It does not seem right when all the sources for the article, and also Microsoft's notification use 17 and not seventeen. It just looks so wrong to me and doesn't mirror any of the sources. Thank you for your consideration. Mattisse (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. The article can use either, and it's not exactly a big deal; it means exactly the same thing whatever method we use to present it. The style guide, in its current form, says to spell out numbers in the teens—if you wish to change that, I'm sure you could get consensus (although I expect most people would follow me in quoting Gone With the Wind). If people want to use "17", that's fine by me. DEN  DODGE  11:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Twitter logo
Can you revert to the old logo? The new one was deleted at Commons. (Or just upload the new one locally?)  — fetch · comms  01:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd rather we used the new one, but I don't feel strongly either way. If you like, I can upload it locally (Wikipedia has a copy I could "borrow" at Twitter), and I'm sure we could claim fair use, but I'm not sure the new (unfree) logo conveys anything the old (free) one doesn't, other than the cute tweety bird. DEN  DODGE  15:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, the old one is good enough. Ta,  — fetch · comms  03:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Help!
The article I wrote Bob Dylan plays first concert in Vietnam has twice been removed from the "Submitted for peer review" without being reviewed. Just now it was at the top of the line, and now it is suddenly back in "In development, undisputed" but no one has reviewed it. What's happening? Wish you would help. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Is it because it was deleted by a vandal? I have been working hard over days, keeping it updated so it wouldn't go stale. Now it seems hopeless! Mattisse (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's because it was vandalised. I would review it for you, but I'm very busy with various personal and academic issues ATM, and can't guarantee that I'll have enough time to finish a review, I'm afraid. DEN  DODGE  20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all well sourced, and I have tried to use sources that are easy to read and verify. If you look at the article history, you will see how I have continually updated the sources over several days. Please consider reviewing it! Mattisse (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅—I started reviewing it as soon as I had submitted my reply above. I went a bit faster than I would have liked, but it all checked out. The style could have been less "magaziney", but that's not really an issue—more personal preference, and hard to help with pop music articles. DEN  DODGE  20:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A thousand million thanks! Mattisse (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I did this at the same time you published it. C628 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given my limited time, I wasn't quite as thorough with my fact check as I am usually. I thought I had verified everything, but evidently something slipped through :S. Well spotted! DEN  DODGE  21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything removed was sourced and there was no video used as a source. I left a note on C628's page explaining that the sources were there. I'm not sure why he thought they were not.  I was very careful about the sourcing. I replaced the quotebox as it was in the article anyway, and I am not sure if it was meant to be removed. The other part removed I will leave alone but it was sourced by . Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I fear I may have done enough damage already. I'm tired tonight, and as I said, I have personal and academic issues to deal with, so I'm going to stay out of it for now. If it's not sorted by tomorrow (when I get up—probably around lunchtime), I might take another look, but I suggest you take this to the article talk page. More people will see it there! DEN  DODGE  21:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied about the sourcing at my talk. C628 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your reviewing the article, as I am getting very discouraged. I first asked for "publish" on April 11 and because of vandal reversions and such, the article was twice moved out of the "review" queue. The Examiner.com source only provided some context for well known events: Dylan's debut performance 50 years ago plus awards he has received that are very well known. Nothing controversial and nothing not easily verified by other sources other than recent news articles within the last two to three days. Please don't feel bad for helping me out. I have written about 50 published articles in the last month and half. It is unfortunate that when an article writer tries to do more than "gunman shoots 6 in shopping center", reviewers won't review the article. So I very much thank you for doing so. It gives me a little more incentive to keep trying. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I certainly appreciate breadth of coverage. Don't be discouraged by the attitude here—it needs a bit of work, but it's worth persevering, and hopefully something will change soon. I can't really do much on Wikinews lately, due to my busy college schedule and certain personal issues. When the exam season is over in July, I might be able to help out a bit more, but I expect my education will keep me busy, on-and-off, for a good few years. I will try to get stuff reviewed if it's been in the queue for a while, though! DEN  DODGE  12:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bored, by any chance?
Made me laugh, that did. ;-)  wacky wace  13:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty bored. Everyone else has gone inactive on my Supremacy 1914 game, there's nothing on TV, and there's not even anything to review (for a change). Playing with the block tool is more somewhat fun than studying for upcoming exams.  DEN  DODGE  13:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Two threads moved
...to User talk:Dendodge/Main Page. --Pi zero (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)