User talk:Jeffwang

-- 03:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead articles
Hi! So's you know. We generally don't order the lead articles purely chronologically. Lead 1 should be an especially important story, and the other four usually try to somewhat match prominence against position, also mixing in how they look visually in relation to the other leads that are there. When making a new story a lead, which lead to replace is based largely, though not entirely, on which is oldest, but if the new story isn't important enough to occupy that spot, it might be put elsewhere and then the thing it replaces gets moved up. --Pi zero (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews publication
Your recent edits amounted, when taken together, to an attempt to make your unpublished article the number one lead on the main page. This is unacceptable. It seems you don't understand how publication works on Wikinews. We have a rigorous mechanism of independent review by authorized reviewers before an article is published; this is central to our credibility as a news site, it's at the heart of our identity as a project. Unpublished articles do not go on the main page, and turning a published article into a redirect to an unpublished article would have been &mdash;had you understood the consequences of the action&mdash; vandalism. Please read our pages provided to help aspiring authors. The welcome template at the top of this page, Howdy, provides lots of helpful information and links. --Pi zero (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Leads
You just tried to make an extremely marginal-length article about a needle in a sandwich the number-one lead on the main page. You've been told before we don't use chronological order. Moreover, you were messing around with our leads just after a story was published (which you were clearly aware of), while the publishing reviewer was considering where amongst the leads to put the newly published article. That's quite disruptive. --Pi zero (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Pi zero. I think you need to learn to assume good faith. I've never tried to vandalize Wikinews and you are the one who continuously exerts great pressure on me. I didn't know and you shouldn't be harassing me like this, like you have all the power. I was trying to help and that doesn't mean you should threaten me. I thought that a NEEDLE in a sandwich was quite an event; so both of your arguments are void. I clearly remember the non-chrono rule. Please don't harass me any more. Also, I tried to SHORTEN the lead, if you didn't notice. --Jeffwang (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of vandalism. I pointed out difficulties with what you did, and explained why it was disruptive.  Also note that AGF is not observed on Wikinews; we have WN:Never assume, which among other things points out that one should not read more than necessary into a criticism.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Quiz
There was a difficulty with the quiz, because, unfortunately, the article in question has a misleading headline, something not realized until after publication. I tried to adjust the question, but I'm not too happy with the result; you may want to adjust it some other way. --Pi zero (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Phelps article.........
....it should be just about there. Take a look at it. The last paragraph could use a little touching up here and there. Also, please look at the talk page; as I'd said, now that I've dove in headlong as a writer, I can't review it. When you're comfortable with the end result, submit it for review. Man, that dude can swim!! Cheers! --Bddpaux (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose you decided not to finish it. Understandable. I've been busy and had to step away for a little while myself. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was on vacation. The first night's hotel's internet broke. :P --Jeffwang (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)