User talk:Mono/Archive 1

Welc

 * Well, sad to see you go. Mike  moral  ♪♫  03:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa there! What did I do wrong?--Mono (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone named Mikemoral doesn't know how to read a page history is all. :p — Mike moral  ♪♫  23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MBA
Dude, the other article was started way before yours.  — fetch · comms  04:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clearly more developed, though. It's ready for publication; the other is not.  ℳ ono   04:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I merged some stuff I was writing into yours. I try to avoid primary sources (Apple's website), so if I left something out that was in the Information Week article, please add that back. I'm going to sleep now, but this probably falls under fair use here, so maybe upload that locally?  — fetch · comms  04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I merged it pretty quickly; feel free to change any wording around; I copyedited/reworded/reordered a bit very fast.  — fetch · comms  04:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have permission to upload files (odd, as I have 28 edits and have been here since April) so can't do that.  ℳ ono   04:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird.  — fetch · comms  04:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can stewards muck around with stuff, or do I have to find an admin?  ℳ ono   04:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You need a 'crat steward methinks (I can't check the "confirmed user" box), but it's weird, you should have been autoconfirmed already. — Mike moral  ♪♫  04:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The abuse filter de-autoconfirmed you which is why you can't upload. I changed the filter so it doesn't de-autopromote people, but I can't (AFAIK) un-de-autoconfirm you. (Well I could make you an admin which would give you upload privs ;)). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, someday. I have this funny feeling it would be much easier here.  ℳ ono   04:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you confirm me?  ℳ ono   04:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas I can't add people to confirmed group (Which is ironic since i can make people crats...). Steward is probably your best bet. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rearranging the leads
In my observation, we usually don't rearrange the leads so much: when a story gets put in a spot (1–5), it usually stays there until superseded by a fresh story. Swapping leads happens only rarely. Swapping/rearrangement makes it harder to tell which stories are oldest and therefore especially desirable to replace when introducing a new lead: MakeLead lists when each lead template was last edited, and rearrangement wipes out that information. --Pi zero (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh ...
Eh, whatever. We all know it's going to happen. Are you going to add the 1.2 ghz processor, camera, thunderbolt port, etc. as well? ;)  — fetch · comms  16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've finished it. theMONO 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikinews Japan earthquake.png et al
Would it be possible to change the colours of the revamped banners to #aa0000 and #8c8c8c, to fit in with the general tacit consensus we have at the moment, judging by existing banners? Full red is garish. — μ 15:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to. theMONO 00:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Mono/Sandbox2
This is the way your main page prototype looks on my Samsung netbook, running Windows 7 Home Premium and Firefox 4 RC1. Diego Grez return fire 21:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stick a couple of - in there and it might work fine. (also, Pidgin? ew.) — μ 11:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Existing US home sales fall 9.6% in February
Hi, I believe I have taken care of your concerns. Thanks for taking the time to point out my errors. Mattisse (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wording of leads
Please have a look at Water_cooler/miscellaneous - I had to edit two of your leads just now. Thanks. Bencherlite (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent 'drama'
I hope my recent contributions in an effort to defuse an unacceptable situation meet with your approval.

You may note the "post-mortem" item on a sub-page of Geoff's talk; your comments on that, subsectioned, would be most welcome.

Geoff starting on, what I felt was an attempt to lay groundwork for defence of later outbusts, isn't. A followup in the same form based on the actual version reviewed may reinforce that more-than-serious quality concerns existed; plus any remarks on xe's response to what I characterised as a "terse rejection"(see xyr talk).

Obviously I'd want my advice on WN:AAA considered, possibly given clear indication it meets with community consensus, and a strict interpretation and application of action suggested therein.

As one of our newest reviewers, would you concur? --Brian McNeil / talk 07:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your primary template changes
Please tell me what you're doing. I'm in IRC. My plan is to revert your changes in a few minutes until there has been discussion. -  Amgine | t 03:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Explained on IRC. --theMONO 03:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Scientists create schizophrenic brain cells
What's the about? This isn't normal procedure for a published article; if there's a correction notice, we discuss how to word it and slap it on, but for a situation anything like what this seems to be, that's the only substantive remedial action available. So I really want to understand what you had in mind when you put that tag on it. --Pi zero (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer Promotion
I have promoted you to the Reviewer class, entrusting you with the ability to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read: You are welcome to use User Wikinews reviewer.
 * Flagged revisions
 * Reviewing articles
 * Peer review
 * Review
 * Reviewed article version
 * Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews! Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. theMONO 04:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another link of possible interest (i.e., shameless plug for a favorite of mine): WN:Tips on reviewing articles, much of which is occupied by a #Checklist. --Pi zero (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

EPR failure
I mentioned this on the article talk, but I'll leave a note here too, just to be thorough :-). EPR fails to sight from time to time, while doing everything else it's supposed to do.  There's a special section in the Newsroom for it, WN:Newsroom.  As the note there says, just be bloody damn well sure the particular revision in question really was reviewed by an authorized reviewer, and sight it.  No need to re-run EPR.

The dire warnings there, by the way, about "carefully verifying" were added after somebody saw an article in that section of the Newsroom and sighted it and it hadn't been reviewed by an authorized reviewer. Like the two not-for-publication test pages now there. --Pi zero (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The user in question was blocked while the action was being performed. In the #wikinews IRC channel, I spoke with them and ran EZPR over again as it did not seem to have done some of the usual tasks. Thanks for letting me know. theMONO 05:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

already published
You added review to a published story - I removed it, I think you just missed that it's been already published. Cheers, -Gryllida 10:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks as if Mono was trying to improvise a solution for a situation xe wasn't sure would fit within the standard framework &mdash; an already-published article whose accuracy xe seriously doubted. Xe left a talk page note.


 * Actions available for such a situation within the normal structure of things, that occur to me, anyway, are
 * Recheck the facts oneself, or
 * leave a water cooler thread requesting someone else do so.
 * What one does if one discovers major problems depends on how long it's been since publication (I'm assuming we're not talking about copyvio or libel, which are different beasts):
 * If it's within 24 hours of publication, anyone who finds problems can submit an edit for an uninvolved reivewer to peer-review and (if they pass it) sight.
 * Beyond 24 hours, a correction notice is used instead.
 * Contact the publishing reviewer with a (presumably, respectful) inquiry voicing one's concerns.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed the obvious (the article talk page). I re-added the review tag and will try to participate in concerns raised about the article if I can (not being able to review myself as the story author). -Gryllida 11:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Um. Sorry, misunderstanding.  I don't believe the review tag works correctly on a published article, and even if it did, Mono correctly did not sight its addition to the article.  We surely don't want to publish the review tag.  I've removed the review tag again, and self-sighted the removal (on the theory that that's unpublishing an essentially accidental self-sight).  --Pi zero (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for you being clear here. I don't see issues with the article now, but I'm watching the talk page of the article and will try to help with its rewrite if needed. -Gryllida 12:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)