User talk:Viriditas/Archive 1

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Re: Black spot on Jupiter is impact site, says NASA
I see the problem - there is a missing 'be', which I was reading where it wasn't. I'll stick it in and all will be well :). Thanks, Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That is weird. Try a hard refresh (ctrl + F5) on the actual edit box, and check you're editing the current revision, but it shouldn't be doing that. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Occupy group ends Monsanto protest on Maui
Hi. Article found not ready on review; see review comments and, of course,.

Btw, I notice you were welcomed back before flaggedrevs. Our current welcome template, Howdy, may be of interest. --Pi zero (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome (updated)

 * Here's the updated welcome template, you should take a look at the extensive revision herein. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Five sources for four really short paragraphs?
I've been asked about some of your recent contributions, off-wiki, by other contributors. This article (FDA announces testing results of domestic orange juice) was the first I came across.

Yes, it's an event in the future, so the article may-well change extensively. I would hope it will expand substantially beyond being under one paragraph for each utilised source &mdash; otherwise it is somewhat of an "unreasonable" use of reviewer time.

Since you have some history In The Other Place, I will try and sum up the Wikinews philosophy as it relates to article publication:
 * 1) Over 60% of articles by new contributors fail their first review
 * 2) Reviewers prefer to limit substantive editing to avoid precluding carrying out a second review when the submitter makes corrections
 * 3) A "Failing Review" is not a condemnation of a submission but, more akin to not passing a GA or FA review on Wikipedia
 * 4) A very small number of reviewing contributors are available; so, progressing up the quality scale rapidly is well-worthwhile

Unlike, say, student class-work, we encourage (within a staleness window) resubmissions based on feedback from reviews. It may not lead to your first article(s) being published in a timely manner; but, it should lead to you quickly learning what is, and is not, the right way to formulate an article which Wikinews will publish. Please bear in mind we are &mdash; somewhat optimistically &mdash; looking to recruit contributors who can match, or better, the quality of output sources such as the BBC manage.

Wikinews is now in-use by two universities on different continents as a "publication challenge". This means that you're expected to write as-well as student hoping to go into the trade. Where we can, we'll provide feedback to improve your writing &mdash; to the same degree as is done with students from Wollongong or Southern Indiana. The feedback from both these institutions, by both students and lecturers, is that the standards set on Wikinews are likely to increase the overall quality of their students' work. And, those students get to see said work exposed to an international audience.

I'm not going to look at your Wikipedia contributions/block log &mdash; as has been suggested. That is, if I see evidence you take some of the above advice onboard. We've rescued numerous people from Wikipedia blocks and animosity; but, that requires they accept Wikinews is like no other wiki they've edited.

Enough rambling, I'm midway through moving our reporters' resources to a new domain. I will check for comments on what I hope are some helpful, as-opposed to discouraging, remarks. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am extremely troubled by the enormous assumption of bad faith I'm seeing here from you and others. I am an active editor on Wikipedia in good standing, and if you have reason to think otherwise, feel free to let me know.  In case you've forgotten, I recently began editing here at your invitation.  Feel free to revoke it at any time. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're looking at isn't assumption of bad faith; it's something far more alien to Wikipedian culture: lack of assumption. We hypothesize based on available evidence, yes; but we strive not to assume.  This can lead to egregious and sometimes irretrievable misunderstandings, with routine news-site operations interpreted as assumption of bad faith because that may be the only model familiar to the Wikipedian by which to make sense of events.  We really need to find a way of addressing this at For Wikipedians.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What's even worse, is the stubborn attitude some users demonstrate, such as being inflexible and unwilling to admit mistakes. On Wikipedia, we at least try to help users improve articles.  Here, the attitude seems to be, "fuck you, go to hell".  A remarkable contrast, I must say. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments were not intended as an assumption of "bad faith", that you took them as such speaks volumes. Where I see you heading for a clash with established contributors is missing the independent in "independent review". That somewhat limits people's ability to help improve articles &mdash; beyond the act of copyediting.
 * And, you conveniently skipped the actual criticism I raised: five sources to produce four short paragraphs. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Amazing. You just added another assumption of bad faith without apologizing for the former.  It doesn't matter what you intended, what matters is how your comments were received.  That I took them as assumption of bad faith on your part, and that I still take them as an assumption of bad faith, speaks volumes about your behavior to editors on this site.  Not only did you fail to apologize for your previous bad faith remarks about my editing at Wikipedia and reason for coming here at your invitation, you once again responded with additional bad faith assumptions, this time sharing your psychic predictions about my future here and in your evaluation of my ability to improve articles.  I've been working with independent reviews of my work on Wikipedia since 2004, and in all that time, I've only had one dispute with a reviewer, and I can't recall seeing them in years, so I can only assume they no longer edit.  However, the most recent review of my first article here misinterpreted and misconstrued several aspects of the article, and came to false conclusions.  When these were pointed out, the reviewer failed to retract them.  Now, imagine my surprise to find you criticizing me for an article that has not been written yet on a subject that has not yet occurred.  Are you serious?  Obviously, there's a good reason this site has little to no activity and fewer active editors than admins. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's add more "assumptions of bad faith", since you're ever-so-keen to find them where they don't exist. You've been blocked seven times on Wikipedia.
 * If you wish to discuss a specific article's review, instead of squaring up for a fight, then that would be a better point to raise. And, raise it in a form that can actually be discussed as-opposed to oblique mentions thereof. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More bad faith and guilt by association as I expected. For your information, friend, I edited from 2004-2007 without any blocks in my log.  In 2007, I was drawn into several edit wars by editors who were gaming the system, and I let my guard down and was blocked twice for edit warring; the third time was a bad block by an unknowing admin, as I was reverting a sock puppet and did not break the 3RR as was claimed in the log; the fourth time was for edit warring, the fifth time was for incivility, and the sixth time was another bad block that was reverted by the community when it was discovered that the admin was involved in the dispute.  So in total, I have four valid blocks in my log from the period 2007-2010.  Feel free to use it against me, as that appears to be your style.  You should also know that most editors on Wikipedia will change their user name and start a new account to hide their block log.  Unlike others, I've chosen to maintain one account and one alone.  If you are going to continue to hold four blocks against me from 2007-2010, then I think it's obvious that you're the one with the problem, not me.  Your entire "but you've been blocked" line of reasoning is clearly fallacious guilt by association that only underscores your bad faith approach.  You invited me here, Brian.  If you think you made a bad decision, you can always change your mind. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You excel at missing the point. Utterly.

I don't care about your block log on Wikipedia. You want to hurl accusations of bad faith at me, and you did precisely that when offered the opportunity.

You did naught to answer the point originally raised.

Why do you need five sources to write an article of four, painfully short, paragraphs? And, you've done similar with your Black History article &mdash; 11 sources for seven paragraphs.

Incidentally, your trolling is slipping out of comments and onto your talk page. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * More bad faith and more accusations. Until you apologize, there's nothing more to say. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Answer the god-damned question instead of you assuming my comments were made in bad faith. Or, run back to The Other Place with your report on Wikinews being hostile and not rolling out a red carpet for you.
 * We don't have an AGF policy here on Wikinews. If you don't understand why that's the case on a news site, you are truly better-off going back to Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. I've been on Wikipedia the whole time.  I even moved a new article into mainspace while you were insulting me for the nth time today and prepped it for DYK.  I don't have anywhere to go "back" to.  I believe I already explained this to you earlier.  This isn't Wikinews.  This is Brian McNeilNews.  Which is fine.  Just admit it. Viriditas (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question: See above, repeatedly.
 * Answer: provide below, please? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're taking this the wrong way. I actually think it's cool that Wikinews has a strong leader named Brian McNeil. Leadership is important. Viriditas (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Block
I've shortened your block to 4 days from the initial week; I would hope the Wikinews community can come to a decision in that time-frame. But, a few points to consider:
 * I have a huge amount of respect for Pizero's work as a reviewer, xe really challenges contributors (myself included) to post quality work that can be verified.
 * You're new here and, as we ended up wording WN:NOT, Wikinews is like no other Wikimedia project.
 * It would be oh-so-easy to take what you've done here as "Disrupting Wikinews to prove a point"; I would rather not, hoping you can see the quality aims behind our review process.

This all seems to have stemmed from our argument over the article regarding the police officer who pepper-sprayed protesters. You had a, quite valid, point that the article was somewhat narrow in coverage. If Wikinews had had coverage of earlier outrage, and other aspects of the case, I doubt you would have been so confrontational. But, what passed review was the news &mdash; because it was new. Therein seems to lie your primary problem with Wikinews, and it is not one which would be solved by your permanent banning. It would be solved if you discard the "Wikipedia ideology"; if you cannot, then a permanent block seems reasonable. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of the "Wikipedia ideology". Last time I checked, the same "ideology" that governs Wikipedia, also applies to Wikinews, namely Wikimedia.  Perhaps that needs to change. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And regarding your friend Pi zero, he's refused to respond to my objections to both of his "reviews", and he continues to claim that it's his way or the highway. You may find that challenging, but I find it stubborn and inflexible, and not conducive to productivity in any form.  There's a reason this is a dead site.  He's it.  His repeated erroneous claims are not just laughable, they are bordering on delusional.  And yes, you can quote me on that.  I've seen some crazy stuff in my time, but when he claimed that it was "POV" to describe the location of the protest against Monsanto, I could only shake my head and laugh.  This is the kind of person you usually see referred to as a "bureaucratic fuck".  He seeks order over accuracy, tidiness over informed detail, and bureuacracy over community.  It's a dead end.  The sad reality is, this site has been operating as a walled garden, a place where admins outnumber users, where recent changes is almost inactive.  There's a reason for that, and that reason is not me.  If I have disrupted anything at all, if I have interfered with the status quo, if I have woken you up from your paper pushing slumber and made you think—maybe there isn't only one way to do things—then I have succeeded.  If you continue to insulate yourself from reality, from the wider world around you (Pi zero had no clue that Monsanto protests were occurring simultaneously around the world and he gave me the impression that he hasn't followed the news for two decades), then this site will suffer a fate worse than 404, it will be ignored. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Occupy_group_ends_Monsanto_protest_on_Maui
Every single claim Pi zero made in his review over at Talk:Occupy_group_ends_Monsanto_protest_on_Maui was false and he has failed to support his review with evidence of any kind. I can only assume that Pi zero's personal beliefs are interfering with his role as a reviewer. As a result of Pi zero's false review, I ask that he step down as a reviewer. This is not a matter of making a simple mistake. This is an issue with someone abusing a position of trust. Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That, "my friend", is a point you will always lose on. You cannot use forward-looking sources as being a reliable indicator of what actually took place. The Maui article talks of events which supposedly occurred on January 30, yet the most recent cited source is the 27th. Nobody, not even you, can see three days into the future; that is why that article is not competently presented news.
 * You chose to fight rather than cooperate, you set out to prove goodness-knows-what point with how you presented articles, and how you reacted to community peer-review. When offered constructive criticism, you responded with childishness &mdash; "waaah! won't fix!"
 * You're delusional if you think that sort of attitude would be a net asset to Wikinews; I'm frankly astonished if it's tolerated on Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source above that I provided as an example is dated February 2, and the content is identical to the older sources. This is another example of misinterpreting sources and not understanding how they are used properly.  The review that Pi zero left on the talk page is 100% false.  He was asked several times to support his claims with evidence and failed.  In addition, he made a number of outrageous claims that had no substance, such as disputing the newsworthiness, inflating the age of the sources, and claiming that naming the location of the protest was a form of POV.  His review was intended to prevent publication, not to improve the article. Viriditas (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Source "above"? All that matters is what is used on the article; those sources are days before the events the article refers to. That is not competent. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that I was using forward looking sources to indicate what took place later is, as usual, completely wrong. I requested a review after the protest ended, not before, and the protest group themselves had widely advertised the protest as ending on the 29th and the secondary sources reported that fact.  My usage, therefore, was entirely appropriate and accurate.   The story itself only noted that the protest had ended on the 29th, and reported on the history of the protests, which I had personally attended on the 28th to take photographs, which I added to the article. On the 29th, I drove by the site to determine if the protest was still occurring, and I discovered that it was not.  Nothing in the story reported on the events of the 29th other than to say it had ended, which both the group and the secondary sources had previously reported as scheduled. There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary here, and I was correct to wait for the protests to end before requesting a review. The only thing delusional here is your argument that says journalism isn't allowed on a news wiki.  This is yet another example of missing the forest for the trees, an endemic problem with the wiki demographic. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're desperately entertaining, I'll give you that.
 * An article, dated Monday the 30th, referring to events on Sunday the 29th, and every single cited source pre-dates the reported events by at least two days? That is not journalism, as well you know.
 * You're going to have to do far, far, better than simply blame others here. You're going to have to cut a large slice of humble pie, eat it, and admit you were wrong.
 * But, it would seem you've lost all appetite for this project. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian, like your good friend Pi zero, you have a great talent for distorting the facts. As you've been repeatedly informed, over and over again, the article on the 30th does not refer to any events on the 29th, other than to say the protest was over, a fact that is based on the printed schedule of the protest published by the protest group themselves and multiple secondary sources.  You've been repeately informed of this fact, yet you continue to ignore it.  Every fact in the article from the 30th is supported by reliable sources, and I'm the one who attended the protest on the 28th to take photographs, which I included, and I'm the one who drove by the site on the 30th to make sure it was over, and I'm the one who waited until the protest was over to submit the article for review. Since you are in complete and total denial of the facts, there is nothing more to discuss.  There wasn't anything wrong with the story, and the fact that the protest was coming to an end on the 29th did not alter the facts of the story.  You're unable to see the forest for the trees beacuse you're caught up in the same bureaucratic nonsense as your friend.  This site is supposed to be used as a wiki to report a story, which is exactly what I did, and it was a story that I was able to see with my own eyes and record with my camera. You've ultimately failed, Brian, to uphold the values of Wikinews.  Please block yourself. Viriditas (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you provide original reporting notes on the talk page? Nope.

Talk page editing blocked
Since you continue your abusive edits here on your talk, the ability for you to edit this page has been removed. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please have xyr "offences against journalism" archived as sub-pages of xyr userspace? One would hate to have the indisputable evidence that xe talks a pile of shite lost. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It might as well never have happened.

You quite, quite obviously, never read any of our policies or guidelines. If you had, or paid heed to review comments, you would not be facing a permanent ban for being a pompous ass who shouldn't be allowed any where near news coverage. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)