User talk:Amgine

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Revision as of 04:14, 21 October 2010 by Fetchcomms (talk | contribs) (→‎MBA review: cmt)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives

This talk page is randomly archived by the user, with occasional links provided to historic revisions.

W Solstice 2006
S Solstice 2008
W Solstice 2009
S Solstice 2010
Samain 2010
Beltain 2011
Solstice 2013
Nearly mid-Spring 2023

This user left Wikinews, so leaving any messages on this page will be pointless. Further, this user refuses to acknowledge LQT, and does not use it.

Twitter firing

Amgine, please consider commenting at Talk:CNN journalist fired for controversial Twitter message#Neutrality, as I can only reflect my opinion, and I am sure that yours differs. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WN:NOT

Very funny, but it does avoid giving any explanation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have viewed it as noncontroversial, but just to please you I shall. Isn't that nice of me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You did get that email password, right? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback - explanation?

Just curious, could you explain why you reverted this edit by Cocoaguy (talk · contribs)? That seemed to be a legitimate link ... (Also, please consider using "undo" with an edit summary, and not rollback, for anything that's not vandalism, especially when the reasons for the revert may be unclear. In my experience it helps avoid confusion and some users don't like to see their contributions removed in that fashion.) Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at my talk page. Tempodivalse [talk] 04:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email

Thanks for your question. I am pondering the answer and shall answer it after class... Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 05:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

email?

Please confirm on-wiki (rather than by email) that you sent an email to my Wikinews account. --Pi zero (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That answers the question I had intended to ask, which was whether the email was sent by you. I can clearly see (in retrospect) how it might have sounded as if the email had not arrived, but in fact it did. --Pi zero (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The warning is also appreciated. As it happens, I had noted that. Also the fact that the software (quite reasonably) will not allow sending email from an account that does not have an email address to provide to the recipient. Because I know from experience that public anonymity makes me a more effective WMF contributor, I'm not inclined to give it up casually. Setting up a reasonably anonymous email account is an exercise I had expected to take a stab at either if I ended up on ArbCom, or otherwise sometime after my dissertation defense (say, early September). This is not an emergency, and I have nominally "no" non-emergency time for Wikinews this weekend, so it is quite possible that I will not reply to the email. But I'll see what I can do. --Pi zero (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tip

Hi Mr. Amgine,

You came across antagonistic when you reviewed those articles - always remember flies and honey!

The less keen contributors may feel under-appreciated and leave the site all together.

BKCW8 talk 10:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another tip

If you revert an edit, say why in the edit-summary. I am interested to hear what you think was undesirable about my copy-edit of the opening of the Manual of style. Please discuss it on the talk page before reverting. Tony1 (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually ask advice about purely copy-editing issues. I made no substantive changes to the meaning. Could you advise me what could be the problem in the edit I made? The previous version was not well-written—in fact, it was embarrassing. Tony1 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have neither responded to my queries here or on the talk page, nor provided an edit-summary in your second reversion. Is this the way things are normally done here? Tony1 (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, yes. The culture here is rather...lax...on such things. C628 (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom votes

Hi Amgine. Just curious, what do you mean in your arbcom votes by "precedence"? the wub "?!" 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this relates to questions posed during the process, and the actual legal definition of the term. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What legal definition would that be, Wiktionary is sadly unenlightening. Perhaps it was meant to be "precedents"? That would make more sense and fit with the questions. the wub "?!" 00:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precedence, generally, is the hierarchy of binding decisions, policies, rulings. For example, for en.WN, a decision by the Board of Trustees about whether the central notice banner will be displayed here is binding on the ArbCom, but a decision by admins on Meta to block links to a website via Spam Blacklist is not. A perma-ban on en.WP would be a non-binding precedent on ArbCom; it could certainly be cited to inform the ArbCom, and it might be a brilliant and obvious decision to follow, but ArbCom would need to decide the merits of the issue brought before it.
Precedence is the "bigger picture" of precedents. In most judicial systems there is not as clear a hierarchy as might at first be believed; one court may assert primacy in a given field, another's role may be to review challenged court decisions and assert its right to create precedent. Under French law precedent has little weight, but precedence has dramatic weight: being able to select the most-senior court is more important to a case than being heard by the most suitable one. Under the U.S. system the three primary branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial - each make laws, hold courts, and enforce laws, although the judicial branch only enforces laws about courts. Thus the question about precedence, rather than precedents, is more fundamental for an ArbCom candidate to both be aware of and to consider. - Amgine | t 02:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you, very enlightening. the wub "?!" 20:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

I quote from the preface of your talk page, "This user left Wikinews, so leaving any messages on this page will be pointless."

Yet, look at your recent contributions, which have been numerous. So, which is it?

I accord you the same respect that has been accorded to nameless others that have come and gone before you. None. 24.125.55.90 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<laughs> Clearly I am not here. Why do you ask? - Amgine | t 03:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh c'mon, clearly you are here. Miss it? 24.125.55.90 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. You don't see me doing 100 edits a day, do you? Mostly I'm hanging out in IRC whilst working on a weatherbot ostensibly for Wikinews, but never likely to be used here. (I hate politics and votes, so I'd never push for bot approval.) - Amgine | t 03:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the difference between you and me. I love politics, as much as that might have been my undoing, among many other factors. Bot?... oh, I meant But.
Nice to see you on the round-abouts. 24.125.55.90 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<grin> Nice to see you again as well. Here's the parser I'm currently stuck in. (Fiji is weird). - Amgine | t 03:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews Shorts: September 2, 2010

The aggregate article shows in WN:Newsroom#Articles mispublished, which highlights a serious infrastructural problem with transcluding one article into another. An extra safeguard against accidental publication seemed like a prudent interim measure. --Pi zero (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A robust technical solution needs to be something that's done on the aggregating page, I think. It would be difficult to approach through Template:Publish, since that content is already being transcluded once, and we just want to prevent it from passing through a second layer of transclusion. Using noinclude or includeonly markup in the sub-article to modulate the {{publish}} tag could technically do the job, but doesn't seem robust enough; there's too much that could easily go wrong. We want a conditional on the aggregating page that depends on some unfalsifiable proof that a sub-article has been published; so far I've had no inspiration on how to do that. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I think it's probably desirable that Articles mispublished be an inclusive list of pages in Category:Published that have something hinky about them. I'd ruther not exclude Category:No publish, because I don't think that category necessarily precludes hink. --Pi zero (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see Articles mispublished as a place to draw attention to articles that are sending suspiciously mixed messages about whether they should be published. Something is wrong and therefore somebody ought to take a look and fix it. I added Amp to the newsroom pursuant to a water cooler thread about the existence of a whole bunch of articles that had gotten lost in limbo — they'd disappeared from the Newsroom without getting published, and whatever went wrong with them evidently hadn't been caught in recentchanges. Some such articles at that time had been in limbo for, I believe, a year or more. The two most usual ways for an article to end up in Amp are
  • a newbie adds the publish tag because they don't know any better, or
  • EPR fails to sight the article when publishing it.
An article that has both Category:Published and Category:No publish seems to me to be sending suspiciously mixed messages, so I think it does belong there. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources on the talk page? That opens them up to vandalism, we can't sight them there. Couldn't we have a collapsable show/hide for sources? (We might want to consider rolling that out on all articles). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds nice to me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always willing to use my admin powerz to serve up lashings of delicious copypasta. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel tanker aground in Northwest Passage

Do you think this should be given a {{dateline|September 3, 2010}}, or perhaps renamed to "Wikinews Shorts: September 3, 2010/Fuel tanker aground in Northwest Passage"? --Pi zero (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point? What is this all about?

They are clearly listed as primarily for a user. They are user templates; and because of an issue that I had when moving it entirely to the user space, I had to stick template back on them. What's wrong?- They are clearly marked. I'll remove the published category right now. Can you help put them in the User: namespace but keep them acting as Templates? They need to act as templates. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the Category:Published. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a wonderful evening

... unfortunately, this wasn't it.

Why is it that the norms of Wikipedia are always assumed to have some sort of primacy?

We're getting back to yet another variation of the "cultural insensitivity" which my highlighting caused Mike Godwin to spontaneously combust.

Your point on the SG talk was far from lost on me, but I have not the patience to engage in near-useless "academic" debate.

ShakataGaNai indicates xe is/was reviewing the dispute, Craig may yet take heed of my latest comment on AAA highlighting the seriously condescending attitude of those from The Other Place. And, it remains undetermined how many angels can dance upon the head of a pin.

I'd dearly love to know which national publications Greg and Tony have had submissions accepted by; I doubt they are your typical "fourth estate" variety - likely the more rarefied 'Ivory Tower' sort.

Would that those who came to hear me talk in 2008 had joined from The Other Place. Sadly not. Arabic Wikipedians I urged to rescue arWN wanted paid, and the most valid criticism in the talk's Q&A was a journalist asking why the Print Edition, now since abandoned, was not pushed more.

I will leave you to spar with the junior debating team from The Other Place. Their taunting of Bawolff is likely to see him heading south to D.C. with a box of matches.

An afternoon with my young lady friend should put me in better spirits.

I stand by my putdown of Tony1. I suspect you would, on-wiki, be more gainfully employed expanding Wikinews for Wikipedians to cover policy-wonkery.

As to the style guide, I hope someone has the good sense to protect it for the time being. Then "bold", but utterly inappropriate, changes will be prevented. I am, as you seem to understand, being repeatedly shut out of the discussion there. As there are indications the disruptive members of The Other Place have good standing elsewhere I've kept 'The Moulton put-down' in reserve - even though their tendacious editing quite obviously merits it.

(/me really, really must get Bawolff to cobble together that '<x> days since I last swore on-wiki' bot.)

SNUH! And, see you in Karl's nose. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blasting the review backlog

Sorry, what do you mean by blasting the review backlog? (This is probably something I didn't do.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for review

Hi....I've completed and marked Wikinews:Story preparation/Magicians Club Holds Annual Swap Meet as ready for publish/review. Something doesn't feel right, though: should I move it to strictly Magicians Club Holds Annual Swap Meet?Buddpaul (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it. The review queue (shown here if you have javascript turned on) only lists pages in mainspace. --Pi zero (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unpublishing

Please undo yourself. This info is backed up, to a prior article cited in the Related news subsection. This is standard practice. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: We no longer unpublish (except in the case of the 'publish' tag added without being sighted: for example by a non-reviewer.) We post retractions or corrections. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the case of defamation? - Amgine | t 14:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is my understanding. Unpublishing doesn't hide it: it just takes it off the main page and on-site portals. We could hit the delete button, but even then, the article was already copied by mirror sites, RSS feed consumers and Google News. I learned this when I did the same thing myself, and it was explained to me slowly and carefully! --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest in IRC that you remove the offending text while you discussed a solution, which would have solved that issue very easily, but no, nobody wanted to do anything so sensible. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depublishing does less to remedy the situation than does removing the offending text. Both measures cease to propagate the objectionable version of the article, but that's all depublishing does, whereas removing the offending text also presents an alternative version. Once the offending text has been removed, the community discusses what to do. Even in the most extreme case that we retract the entire article and and delete the page in order to remove public access to its revision history, we replace the page with a retraction notice. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublishing is a credible, specific, and obvious action to stop propagation of potentially criminal text. Removing objectionable sentences *may* address the issue, but it does not specifically stop propagation from Wikinews. There is nothing wrong with stopping propagation, examining the issue and reaching editorial compromise, then and only then re-starting propagation. It is also likely less disruptive of the community - most authors would take greater exception to altering their prose without consultation than temporarily pausing it, imo. - Amgine | t 17:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it credible —always keeping in mind that since this is a wiki, articles don't have authors per se— that a contributor is going to be less upset about having all of their unproblematic work on an article removed along with one problematic passage, in defiance of policy, than they would be upset by having just the one passage removed in accordance with policy.
Your statement that there is "nothing" wrong with stopping propagation of any version at all, then "discussing" the matter, is false. In no particular order — On one hand, it's stopping propagation of a lot of unproblematic material because something else is problematic (an equally effective measure to prevent the propagation of a problematic passage would be to simply blank the Wikinews main page). And on another hand, it guarantees that when the article is republished it will have an undeserved place at the top of the main page DPL, misrepresenting its date and demoting the currency of other articles that should be given higher billing. (In this incident, someone mistook the republished article for new and made it a lead, which someone else fortunately caught and undid in short order.)
Do you have a technical justification for your (otherwise bizarre) claim that ceasing to publish one version without presenting an alternative is a more effective measure than ceasing to publish one version and presenting an alternative? A valid technical justification for this would be of much interest. --Pi zero (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We may be talking at cross-purposes. Credible, in the sense I used it, is the normal judicial use of "an action whose intent aligns with its stated purpose", eg stopping sales of a potentially unsafe product.
It is my opinion Wikinews has one product: articles. The wiki does not propagate in any more granular manner. So, either the unit contains defamation, or it does not.
The DPL issue has already been addressed in at least one fix submitted to the Foundation for inclusion. However, even were the technical issue not addressed, it does not have any impact in the core issue: Wikinews continuing to propagate potentially harmful content.
Allow me a Socratic moment: Cirt went ballistic when I unpublished his article. What would his reaction have been had I simply hacked off the portions which I found problematic (which would include the still-extant and spurious linking to WP's Scientology & pregnancy article)? In general, community disruption is, for me, the over-riding priority, and imo taking a pause is less-disruptive than instigating revert-wars. - Amgine | t 19:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

┌──────────────────────────┘
 There are two "core" issues here.

The core issue we've been talking about is whether one should remove all the content of an article because one sees a problem with one passage in it. With deep regret, I'm going to defer that issue to some future post, in the interest of completing this post tonight.

The other core issue, that this thread is supposedly about, is depublication. Evidently, even if removing all content were the right thing to do (which goes to the first issue), removing all content does not require depublication; on the contrary, when one believes that the entire content of a published article needs to be taken down at once, the per-policy way to do that is to, first, immediately remove the entire article content without depublishing (presumably one would want to replace it with a notice that due to concerns the material has been removed pending a community decision on its disposition), and second, immediately thereafter start a community discussion to decide whether the first action was warranted and what to do next. This differs from depublishing in two important ways.

  • Depublication is at heart (though it's easy to lose sight of this, in the heat of the moment) a hiding of the fact that a mistake was, or may have been, made — bluntly, a cover-up. Cover-ups are intellectually dishonest, running away from the truth, which we must not do at Wikinews. (It would, in an ideal world, go without saying that whether one admits to mistakes has nothing whatsoever to do with whether one takes down harmful material.)
  • Depublication is begging for an edit war. It is a unilateral reversal of the (by nature) unilateral decision of a reviewer to publish — and greatly compounding that, it implies a future unilateral decision, on someone's part, as to what constitutes an acceptable resolution of the problem. That last is because the obvious cure for depublication is republication, and as already noted, publication is generally understood as a unilateral decision. By following policy, one takes a tack that doesn't directly undo the previous unilateral decision, and thus one doesn't pit oneself one-on-one against the publishing reviewer, and one puts the community in charge of deciding what to do next. Putting it to the community is the cure for edit-warring, in contrast to setting up an endless sequence of unilateral decisions which would be an incitement to edit-warring. You asked whether Cirt would have gone ballistic if you'd removed some of the material. I can't speak for an individual's behavior in a hypothetical situation, but in my experience, per-policy taking down material believed harmful, without depublishing, and then starting a rational discussion — results in a rational discussion. In my experience, depublishing an article results in a huge furor.

--Pi zero (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At heart, I disagree with and dispute with all of the above assertions. (This, btw, is a standard weasely way to avoid much longer point-by-point rebuttals. I'll happily engage in wikilawyering, so long as it is clear up front it is pointless quibbling over heads of pins.)
(2) The core issue is whether Wikinews should continue to publish defamation once identified, or even where there is reasonable suspicion. There is no second issue imo.
(3) Disputed as per (2).
(4) Disputed. Unpublishing is an attempt to stop current and future harm by Wikinews by official publication of misinformation, slander, lies, or other justifiable reasons for unpublishing.
(5) Disputed. Unpublishing does not alter the article, nor materially harm the author. It may harm or cause conflict with the approving reviewer, and it is to be noted my first action on unpublishing was to notify that reviewer via IRC, and why. Ime author's are much more likely to feel justification for reversion if a colleague alters the article, especially via a sizeable deletion, than if the article is moved back to develop while the issue is resolved. YMMV.
- Amgine | t 20:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(It took me a long time to figure out the numbers, but I think I've got it now.  :-)
I cannot think of a polite way to properly express my assessment of your claim that the core-and-only issue is whether we should continue to publish suspected defamatory material. A totally uncontroversial question is not a "core issue". Policy (best practice, whatever one names it) calls for anyone on the spot who suspects some material of being harmful, to immediately take effective action to cause cessation of propagation of the material. If you can show that anyone around here disagrees with that, then you'll have convinced me of something (surprising) about them; I still won't consider the question controversial. In contrast to that non-issue, one example of a meaningful issue is what action is most effective in causing cessation of propagation of (whatever) material.
On the purpose of depublishing, you seem to be unaware that your remark is consistent with mine. The purpose of depublication is to prevent harm to Wikinews, not to prevent harm to someone who may be defamed. That weakens its credibility (by which I mean in this case the property of its intent aligning with the purpose of preventing harm to someone who may be defamed). See the next paragraph.
Unpublishing does not alter the article. Quite; I was going to point that out. That severely weakens the credibility of depublication. Policy calls specifically for removing suspected-harmful material from the page, exactly because removing the material both causes Wikinews to no longer endorse the material (whereas with depublication, Wikinews is still choosing to serve up that material to anyone on the planet who chooses to access a page whose URL Wikinews has already caused to be spread around the planet), and also prevents any future harm to some other party (such as a victim of defamation) that would be caused by that material continuing to be visible on the page. It should be obvious that if someone has a link to the page, and has been led to believe that it contains a published Wikinews article, then even if the article has in fact been depublished, the best possible way to minimize the likelihood they will believe the material, and also the best possible way to minimize the likelihood they will believe Wikinews endorses the material, is to arrange that the material isn't on the page. --Pi zero (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I neither agree nor disagree with any substantive element of this paragraph. However, I submit there is no single action which more clearly and obviously shows the intent of, and actual, removal from publication than unpublishing; even deletion, while more effective, is less obvious.
(2) I dispute all assertions. While the action of unpublishing may, consequentially, reduce potential harm to Wikinews, it actually and really does prevent further harm to a subject of defamation.
(3) While unpublished, an article is not actively being communicated to third parties. (As a wiki, this is the equivalent of a commercial newssource's articles-in-process.) Active communication is one of the three tests of defamation (the other two being an actual defaming statement, and knowing or should have known the statement to be false.) Any article unpublished should, according to en.WN policy, display templates indicating the content is under development, in dispute, or awaiting review - each clearly identifying that Wikinews does not endorse the content as ready for publication.
- Amgine | t 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


thread from InfantGorilla's talk page

That is unfortunate. It likely leaves every Wikinews admin as well as the original contributors of such defamation culpable as well as liable. The court would accept a 'good-faith effort' defence, but a site policy of not unpublishing would certainly be evidence of harm. I will continue to unpublish in defiance of such a manifestly harmful policy. - Amgine | t 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a retraction is a good faith effort, and has a wider reach and more visible effect than 'unpublish'. So I quite like the new unofficial policy. --InfantGorilla (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have a wider reach, nor is it more visible. On what would you base such statements? - Amgine | t 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for IG, but I suspect xe means by that the following: Removing the article means nobody will see anything, whereas removing only the text means people will come and see the version with the missing text. Adding the retraction informs people who do happen to drop back of the problem.
Here's a thought: Does republish put it back into GNews afresh, and cause a new entry in the RSS etc? We could cut the text temproarily, and then unpublich/republish once we had decided on a correction, thus correcting ourselves to as much of our readership as possible. A court will appreciate that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Actually I didn't quite mean "Removing the article means nobody will see anything". Removing the 'publish' tag just takes the article off the main page, but people can come and read it from a back link just the same: they won't notice that there is no 'share' banner at the bottom.
  2. BRS - unpublish/republish is a good idea. Would you take it to water cooler and see if anyone knows if it does what you ask?
--InfantGorilla (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how, if at all, Google etc. respond when an article disappears from the main page makes a huge difference. If there's something we want to trigger, we'll want to know exactly what it takes to trigger it.
That said, if we do want to trigger something by removing from the main page, then we should arrange to cause that using an aditional category, like Category:Temporarily suspended or something. That way, because the article stays in the published category, I think restoring it later will put it back in the correct place in order, rather than moving it to the top of the DPL because it only just entered Category:Published. --Pi zero (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, while I certainly appreciate the importance and weight of Google News, what happens to an article once it is off of Wikinews itself is not relevant to this discussion at all. - Amgine | t 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Wikinews is responsible for placing Wikinews onto GNews, albeit with GNews approval, one could argue it was as relevant as the RSS feed. Anyway, this was always a tangent to the main conversation: that was about how this issue was handled, whereas this semi-relevance (like an irrelevance but not quite...) is about possible future moves to modify our process. And no, I haven't thought it through; as usual, I'm thinking aloud. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never had any wish to rake over the coals of yesterday's issue. I merely wanted to point out the current consensus (as I understood it) on how these things should be handled in future occurrences. Both the judicial and the technical effects of our actions are relevant, and it looks like discussion has brought out possible improvements in both directions. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the ...

Would someone please drop me a line to put me in the picture about this discussion?

There are very important reasons behind retraction over depublication. But, those relate to disasters like Saqib's "interview".

To summarise, depublication is useless unless done within 10-15 minutes of a technically correct review and publication. Yes, that's GNews and feeds-related.

So, gentlebeans, please talk to the resident Systems Analyst and Google contact. Tell me, what is the problem you're trying to solve? (brian dot mcneil868 at o2.co.uk) --Brian McNeil / talk 06:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets compose an e-mail to Brian on here. As a first draft: "the problem we are trying to solve is: when we respond to possibly actionable defamatory text, do reviewers and admins take action that a judge will see as 'credible'?" --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian McNeil:
You are a fool. (as usual <wink>)
Unpublishing on Wikinews at any point does the following:
  • Removes article from DPLs which are themselves used for RSS feeds
  • Shows a specific, credible action taken by Wikinews to remove the article from further propagation.
  • If 21919 is ever implemented, will immediately remove the article from Google News
This is not about what happens to an article once it leaves Wikinews; it's about what happens here.
- Amgine | t 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, one would conclude we need an MGodwin vote on that patch? ;-)
Incidentally, I'm only visibly a fool when making a pass at a waitress. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is 21919? Aha! the Google News Site Map. And just ask her for a coffee: foolishness and hope are not the same thing. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooo, never thought of a MGodwin vote... oh, geez, is it that late already? (overslept) - Amgine | t 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's always late, when you've an important date. I think the above, slightly subversive, idea merits pursuit; how can we put a case to the WMF's legal counsel that certain software changes are legally prudential moves? And, IG, my pass at the waitress was to decline something from the dessert menu because she wasn't on it. That's a "mild" pass, more like a 'register of interest'. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Wikipedia admins

Yes, I'm the person requesting SUL/usurpation. - Amgine | t 02:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MBA review

"There's no coverage of previous issues (like MacAir's failure to gain market traction) or criticisms (Apple backing down on iOs licensing/monopoly investigations)" yes, except that's not in any sources. The article is over the new MBA and only briefly discuss iOS--in relation to OS X. This shouldn't be a factor in the article. —fetch·comms 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I merged a lot of stuff quickly and am going to sleep now, so if you need to re-rewrite the lede et al., please do. —fetch·comms 04:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amgine&oldid=1116734"