User talk:Tadpole256

Common Sense Editing
I would encourage everyone here to use a modicum of common sense prior to editing an article. Clearly, we can all see typos & mis-spellings. Those should be fixed quickly, and you need not take a jab at the author for it, unless of course you have never made a mistake yourself. But when it comes to completely re-wording and re-writing an article, you should always have the decency and respect for your fellow writers to at least read some sources, and educate yourself on the subject prior to destroying the work of another. I am not asking you to earn a Ph.D. in a subject, but at least familiarize yourself with a subject. If you are going to write about a computer, find out something about that computer, visit the manufacturer's web site, get some knowledge, otherwise your slap-dash edits will simply make you appear to be an ignoramus to anyone who actually knows something about the subject. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Review Process
Is it just me, or is the review process here very slow? I have worked at other news organizations, which were admittedly more traditional, and I am used to a much faster review process. I understand that WikiNews has a limited number of reviewers, and of those reviewers it seems as though only a few actually actively participate, but still the process seems slow to me. It seems to me that WikiNews' greatest advantage should be it's ability to get news out there quickly, even if it only starts with a basic paragraph. But the story can grow and evolve as more details are revealed and as events naturally evolve, because this is a Wiki! But the opposite seems to be true here. Stories are left to languish, sometimes for days in the "awaiting review" pool, and in the mean time WikiNews misses a story. I may be wrong, but there has to be a limited market for people who want to re-read the same stories they have already read elsewhere. I believe WikiNews could be insanely great, but it's weakness right now lies in it's incredibly slow review process. So what do we do to make it better? How do we fix it? Where do we go from here? Or am I missing something?

And please, if you are tempted to send me a link to a style guide or some other policy, please don't bother, I read them all before I began participating. I lurked long and hard before I decided there was enough potential in this site for me to throw some effort it's way. I want to help, so what do we do? Tadpole256 (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
To request deletion of a spam page, type spam at the top of the page in question. — μ 17:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wal-Mart Stores "Going Back to Basics"
I found your article an interesting and informative story that explained a lot of useful information to me. (I am interested in "business" stories.) Sorry to see that such articles cannot pass, and I am glad to see that you are writing another. Push the "publish" button soon, so that it doesn't go "stale". Get it in the "Submitted for peer review" queue! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the support. The editors keep telling me it reads too much like an ad or a press release, and that it needs to be more neutral. Makes me question if they are actually reading the story. I went ahead and published it myself at my blog at http://www.quixoticjourney.com Tadpole256 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Style guide
OK, you wanted some clarification about what was wrong: The best way to learn this is just to read the style guide. If you think it's too boring, get used to it—reviewers are more likely to review your article if they don't need to bother with a major copyedit. Hope this helped.  — fetch · comms  18:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See my fixes.
 * Wikinews is an international project. Do not use abbreviations, like Rep. or R or Ky. because our friends in, oh, New Zealand have no idea what the hell that means.
 * Numbers < 20 are usually spelled out, except if they are numeric in a proper noun, etc.
 * Contractions are informal.
 * Dates are always MM DD, YYYY. So, I changed those too.
 * Give more detailed place names the first time you use them, except possibly major cities like London, New York City, Sydney, etc. (would a Brit know where Lexington is without the Kentucky after it?).
 * Once you get use to following the style guide, you just do it automatically. While it's boring reading it initially, you usually only have to do it once. :) Gopher65talk 01:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read the style guide. I Probably will have to read it once or twice more. My past journalistic efforts have been solely for American News Outlets, so I do have to be mindful of our international audience. Thanks for the advice. Tadpole256 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Walmart article
Tadpole: I disagree with the original reason given for failing your article, but regardless of that, it's now too late to publish it. Articles need to be published within 3 days of the news event occurring (news needs to be 'new', by the definition of the word). Because of that, your Walmart article can no longer be published. In the hope that you can save some of your writing for either another article here (if there are futher developments in the article it can be revived, or part of it can be used as background in a new article) or for Wikipedia, I've moved the article and it's associated talk page to your userspace here: User:Tadpole256/Wal-Mart stores 'going back to basics'. Sorry about this. Gopher65talk 00:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that someone gave the article a fair look. I understand that the story became stale, that is why I published it on my own web site. It was good journalism, I suspect anything about Walmart that wasn't straight Walmart bashing likely would have been left to rot in the review process. I sincerely appreciate your moving the article to a place where I can build on it. Thanks for your help. Tadpole256 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has been failed because we have an "edit war"
Please address this with the editor who failed the review. I was under the impression you had backed off from the "edit war". Is this not true? Please respone on the article's talk page. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I got the impression that Tadpole256 had gone for lunch. — μchip08 01:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The editor who failed the review has made several other unfair / biased reviews in the past. It's par for his course. Brian McNeil fixed the injustice. Good to see someone cares about journalism and not their personal opinions. No worries Matisse! Tadpole256 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have found fault with Diego Grez, I'm sure he would appreciate some examples of such an instance in order for him to improve next time. Regards, — μchip08 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a Mistake. It was not DG I had a problem with last time, it was Gopher & Mono. Sorry about that, DG's misunderstanding of WN policies is a completely new instance, but does mark a noticeable trend. Hopefully it was an isolated incident. We all make mistakes! Tadpole256 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait! This is not Diego's first mistake. Look at this Talk:U.S. military denies reports helicopter opened fire on Libyan civilians during rescue mission. He childishly refuses to look at a link because it comes from Wikipedia. Really? WikiNews says Wikipedia is not reliable. That's the pot calling the kettle black if I have ever seen it! Two halves of the same project, and I can' cite Wikipedia? Not that my argument required a citation. Anyone with above a third grade education and a functional set of eye-balls can see that an Osprey is not a helicopter, but a tilt-rotor. It's rotors TILT! That's the definition of tilt-rotor! DG is as bad as the rest. He deserves the criticism. Tadpole256 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is *not* allowed for use in some schools due to the lack of 100% truth guarantee. Not all errors are found straight away. Getting a book or another documentation indeed is preferable as a source, though Wikipedia can be enough in this case. Gryllida 20:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand why Wikipedia is not accepted in academia, but this is not academia. Furthermore, as a part of the WikiMedia foundation, WikiNews makes itself look silly by refusing to even click on links to Wikipedia. At some point common sense must prevail. I would never use Wikipedia as the basis for an article, but If wikipedia + eyeballs + common sense indicate a correction should be made, then by golly... Tadpole256 (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I am ignorant, regarding aeronautical topics. Wikipedia by itself is not a reliable source, "ANYBODY" can edit it. I don't care if it is backed up by other sources, Wikipedia by itself is not reliable, use the sources pointed out there. Wikinews /tries/ to make itself reliable, and Wikipedia won't help. アンパロ Io ti odio! 20:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. Just use common sense! And never refuse to look at a link. That's called snobbery. You must always consider the evidence presented, then use that along with common sense to make your decisions, and you'll do fine. Now I just wish you'd fix that title. It irks me to no end, because as an active duty member of the U.S. Navy who writes about such things from time-to-time, we have it drilled into us not to call the Osprey a helicopter. So to anyone who DOES know anything about aviation, that story loses creditability right off the bat. This is a wiki, we can make it better, but we have to take action to do so! Tadpole256 (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just raising concerns is allright. Wikipedia may have inaccurate information. This sometimes is important for some reviews. Just asking doesn't hurt... The "edit-war" fail review wasn't entirely DiegoGrez's decision per another section at that article talk page. The review process is tough, but we can just try to catalyse and move along instead of commenting on eachother. Thanks! Gryllida 20:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to comment on DG personally. I am sure he is a great guy to sit and drink a beer with, and from what I can tell he does a decent job here at WN. He's one of the few people I see who seems committed to trying to make things better. My real beef is with the timeliness of the review process. Speed is everything in the news business. If you don't get an article out in a timely manner, you might as well not bother, and three days in the queue is not timely. I understand many of the other people here have probably never worked in an actual news room, and I don't expect that level of demand or quality, but nit-picking is ridiculous. This is a WIki! Use it like one! Make sure the article passes a basic review, get it out there, and let the community improve it. Butt letting it sit in a review process for days while it is groomed to be "just right" is why this site is lagging! I have to admit, things have been better this week than last week. Last week I was almost ready to give up on WN altogether. Tadpole256 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We try to review in a timely fashion but that doesn't always work very well. Wikinews is entirely volunteer-driven, and substantially smaller than Wikipedia. Thanks for your patience! Gryllida 20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Reviewers aren't psychic. They don't know that one of the contributors who was participating in the edit conflict stopped. This can cause impressions like that. I'm happy the review went out well, and the article is now public! Time to continue to work on other articles. Cheers, Gryllida 20:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No they are not. But they should review the sources. See Scientists create schizophrenic brain cells. Mattisse (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your edits to the Libya story
Hi! We're currently in collaboration via an etherpad to edit this story together, and rather than editing the onwiki version, we'd really appreciate you joining this link so that we can all work together. At the moment, we're working on two different versions, and it would be good to get them all as one please :) BarkingFish (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Apple's data is dirtiest, says Greenpeace
Hi. A heads-up: please don't create a comments page for an article that hasn't been published yet &mdash; as for this article, and unfortunately, no admin noticed and speedy-deleted it before publication. Once this has happened, there is no practical way the resulting broken format of the comments page can ever be fixed. (See User talk:Microchip08.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I was unaware of that bug in the WikiMedia software. Tadpole256 (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lowercase for all Wikimedia projects with the exception of MediaWiki. (And it's not a bug, it's a feature) — μchip08 16:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean, but I will not do it again. Tadpole256 (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * He means, it's "Wikimedia", not "WikiMedia" or "WikiPedia" or "WikiNews", etc., except for "MediaWiki" (which is the software; Wikimedia is the organization).  — fetch · comms  23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Blame me for the "Its not a bug, its a feature" comment; I keep introducing people to warped humour from software developers.

What that actually refers to is the missing LiquidThreads discussion use. What is supposed to happen is the Comments page is only created as part of a successful review. The appropriate magic words are in the created page template to activate LQT. Otherwise, we'd usually zap the Comments: page prior to publication. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. That makes a lot of sense. I was trying to figure out how that was possibly a feature, but figured I'd just go with it. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Thank you.Tadpole256 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Tadpole256/Police continue to search for Long Island serial killer
The article Police continue to search for Long Island serial killer was tagged as abandoned, and has been deleted. As a discretionary courtesy, the article has been moved into your userspace here. — μchip08 23:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WN:SD
"The story is stale and the writing is awful. It is beyond the ability to salvage through reasonable editing and should be deleted" is not a valid quick deletion reason. Only articles that meet one of the speedy deletion criteria can be deleted &mdash; other articles must go through DR, or WN:PROD (which Indian activist ends "fast-unto-death" against corruption was eventually deleted under). Regards, — μchip08 23:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

comment
It's hard not to get discouraged here, I find. I appreciate what you are doing and I certainly would not edit war with you. Mattisse (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the kind words. They seem to be few and far between around these parts. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Friendly note
As I'm sure you are aware, Wikimedia Commons is the shared file repository for projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. As the files of Commons are not hosted locally, comments are more useful being directed to its corresponding talk page on Commons rather than Wikinews, where any user from all 838 wikis can comment. (This is a relatively minor point, by the way) Regards — μchip08 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool... Is this share a random fact day? Why was I chosen for this bequeathal of knowledge?Tadpole256 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No reason. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment on that picture was hardly a profound one, and was really just intended for the user here who was using it on their profile. I am well aware that I could have gone to the commons to make my opinion known, but it hardly seemed worth the effort. I've been doing the Wiki thing for quite a long time, I am well aware of my decisions. But thanks. Tadpole256 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

did you notice?
I brightened your photo on your user page File:Mccloskey.jpg? Feel free to change back! Mattisse (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did notice the change! I didn't think about it too much though. I like it. Thanks! Tadpole256 (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your help and support. It is much appreciated, especially now as I was getting a little discouraged again! Sorry for being a bit snippy about the edit conflict thing earlier. Apologies. Mattisse (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries, I know how it goes. I have discovered WN can be very discouraging sometimes. Tadpole256 (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Congrats!
Sixteen killed in Marrakech bomb blast! Mattisse (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * w00t! Thanks! Tadpole256 (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Kate Middleton's Wedding dress designed by Alexander McQueen fashion house
While I sympathize with your feelings about the article, nominating it for speedy deletion came across as a rather low blow (just saying, that's how it came across). Speedy deletion isn't for marginal cases, and generally isn't for sincere efforts. We don't at all coddle the content contributed by newcomers, but when the newcomers seem to be sincere (as this one did seem to be), we work quite hard at being supportive of them (as distinct from particular content). Note that authorized reviewers, besides having to review newsworthiness as part of a full peer review, would also be specifically required to read the article's talk page, so your comment there would be read by the peer-reviewer in any case. --Pi zero (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Point is taken. I was not intending it to be a low blow. I sincerely thought it was legitimate, given the fact that the story is not really news. I am still learning a lot of the protocols here myself. I'll be more judicious with the use of the tag in the future. Tadpole256 (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about edit conflict
Sorry about the edit conflict on Cassini spacecraft captures large storm on Saturn. I hope you add all you can to the article, as I have had to really plow through to try to understand it. I had to put my editing in as I had done so much that I couldn't have possibly reconstructed it. Please add back your changes continue with you helpful edits. Your interest is much appreciated! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No Worries! I am sure it was completely un-intentional. It's one of the problems when more than one person is working on the same article. I am reading more about it now, and may add some more. Tadpole256 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed these sources (trying to cut down on the number) but maybe you'll find something useful in them.

Mattisse (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate.......
.....the input, there, Gilligan.......but I'm working on that article. It'll be right and proper in most respects when I finish it. Funny the things you choose to do (or, better put, don't do) 'round these parts when you show up every 7 months. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I cannot be online constantly. I do have other obligations. Oh, and my name isn't Gilligan. You can call me Chief if you'd like. Tadpole256 (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sarcasm aside, Tadpole256, you aren't a reviewer, and Bddpaux is an experienced Wikinewsie, so that while discussion on the article talk page is obviously appropriate, slapping a notnews on the article is presumptuous and gratuitously acerbic. --Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * However, I must admit a degree of agreement with Tadpole256's remark he left on my talk page....."WE" do have a common goal here, reporting quality news......those of "US" who show up here, hack away at it, bleed, cry, make phone calls, write, question, worry, photograph, copy edit, help, encourage, think, ponder, clean up, check in, interview people (while standing in the heat), spend our own money on civic journalism, chase fire trucks down the street with video camera in-hand, check out, apologize(when warranted), publicize, pull guard duty, try to improve etc etc etc "WE" do try to create excellent content. Sure, I'm guilty......it's easy to take things a bit personal; but the people who show up here and REALLY TRY TO MAKE THIS A BETTER place with consistency would NEVER stoke my ire under such circumstances. When I'm working on an article, it (early-on) often comes together in a clumsy fashion...........but, be rest-assurred, 99% of the time, if I've invested my time in it, it's news worthy....."I'VE" contributed here enough over the past 3 years to know the difference. You wanna help? Always welcome!! Pick up a pen and be a journalist. Find a typo in my article......be my guest.....deal with it....heck, it's a wiki! But I'd appreciate the presumptive courtesy in the future, that, if bddpaux has started an article, IT'S NEWSWORTHY. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We all get hot under the collar sometimes. Take a deep breath, say an aum, and reread WN:Never assume. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry BDDPaux... While you were chasing firetrucks with your camera, I was chasing something a bit more dangerous in the middle east. Sorry that I cannot spend my every waking moment here, I also serve my country in addition to writing the occassional Wikinews article. That does not make my contributions less valuable than yours, nor does it make your contributions more news-worthy. Someone hitting a 40 year career milestone is not News... Sorry. Tadpole256 (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)