User talk:Marcus Qwertyus

Edit summaries
Please use them. --theMONO 00:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point out that they are entirely optional; you don't have to use them if you wish. — μ 00:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll probably make them brief to reduce edit conflicts. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They're really helpful for edits like this, where the diff shows nothing. --theMONO 00:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the first edit summary
Attribute? Did this come from Wikipedia? If so, it's copyvio; the CC-BY-SA 3.0 is not backwards compatible with the CC-BY-2.5 (you can copy stuff from here to enwiki legally, but not from enwiki to here). Also, it's preferred if attribution is, like, immediate ... so people like me know where the content came from.  — fetch · comms  04:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all from the last Wikinews article, most of which I intend to rewrite. Do you know where the guidelines for Wikinews attribution are? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's odd—why is the article using ref tags? Anyway, I don't know of any guideline for attribution, I just follow the license, which says you have to attribute the author(s) (for other WN content after September 25, 2005, that is). WN:C might cover what you're looking for.  — fetch · comms  05:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I copy pasted some content with the full intention of rewriting to avoid the mundane task of typing it all out. Obviously some fragments are still not fully original to Wikinews. That I intend to fix. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

wikinews: A record of what was known at the time
I have reverted your rename of the Japanese quake story, per policy.

Wikinews articles serve as a record of what was known at the time, not as a constantly revised piece.

The article in question is now two days old; substantial changes, particularly a rename, should not be done. With the quake being upgraded, this is new information which came to light after publication; it should go in a new article. The existing article can then be cited under Related news and drawn from as a source. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion probably carries no weight here but articles should probably be allowed to refresh if the event is 2-3 days old. Articles can take days to review whereas a simple update is instantly available. Wikinews just isn't one of those news organizations that can afford to constantly reprint material. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is contrary to policy. The policy exists for a good reason, and once an article is reviewed and published it is pushed to Google News - they spider and cache it. You should, per policy, never add information dated later than the publication date of an article. Insead, a new article should be created. In this instance, it would be relatively simple to have created Japanese quake upgraded to 9.0 magnitude. 80% of the content could have been drawn from the other articles written on site so-far, thus making reviewing simple. Instead, you made a link on the main page point to a redirect page; and, had your change been sighted, would have had two entries for the same story, under conflicting headlines, pushed to Google News.
 * Please bear in mind this is not Wikipedia. Articles being a record of what was known at the time is a very important part of the project mission. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:breaking news shouldn't really exist then or should be modified. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The breaking template should be removed immediately 24 hours after publication; in fact that ought to be made to happen automatically. --Pi zero (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marcus Qwertyus! Just about the sentence "..Apple additionally introduced a magnetic 'Smart Cover' accessory that snaps to the front screen.." in the article "iPad 2 goes on sale in United States". What do you mean with the verb "snaps" in this context? Thanks a lot in advance Marcus Qwertys!82.53.17.44 (talk) 08:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It quite literally 'snaps' into place. Here is a short clip. I question whether the magnets will be strong enough though. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)