User talk:acagastya

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Are we sure I can’t use LinkedIn as a source, just because you can’t access it without an account? I’m severely limited in my Sirr article to what can be gathered from a profile which was last updated a decade ago. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not why we can't use it. LinkedIn hides things behind paywall, and that is what is discouraged and well, we need to find other ways to investigate.
•–• 18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
That is true, however: Once a reporter is accredited, when they document (Talk page or via Scoop or whatever) that they saw/heard/read something, that is the verification. So, even something that is paywall'd, does NOT automatically disqualify it as a decent source. Now, historically, we want our readers to be able to visit/use/go to that source, sure.....but paywall doesn't NOT automatically make it non-usable. Just for the record. Of course, we require 2, if EVERYTHING in the article is just what the reporter says they saw/heard/read, that doesn't quite cut the mustard. It is a critical distinction.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could I have another admin's word on this? --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with admins. Please do not confuse between admins and reviewers. But no, whatever they hear is not verification, it is evidence. And that needs to be verified by the reviewer. And if a reviewer cannot verify the notes, records or recordings about an alleged incident, that is not considered okay. I had given the example before and i say it again, if i claim to have seen a message sent by Leo Messi and I write an OR about it; if I cannot back my claims, in pizero's own words, "there is no reason to consider those trustworthy." Our trust in ARs is for their notes, not for the facts they found. After all, they are looking for facts, not Joseph Smith's golden tablets. (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who wrote that, but as is often the case, things are merely being re-worded here for the sake of talk. Yes: things must be verified. You bet. Yep. Sure thing. I (as an accredited reporter here) watched live stream/live feeds of things, etc. I wrote down word-for-word what was happening or being said. My notes were placed on the talk page. Those notes were approved by the late Pi Zero (or whomever) as source material. Why? Because I have been vetted as a trustworthy person. That is how I became an accredited reporter. My notes, taken in real-time, serve to back my claims, because the community here has stamped me as 'approved'. In the spirit, we shouldn't get too wrapped up with paywalled sources, because all of that can be problematic. My notes ARE the evidence. Reading the notes is THE ACT of verifying the notes. This is also why we need 2 sources. If I saw Joe drop his spoon on the floor, and photographed it and made notes about it, if there is no other 'source material' to back up the basics of what I'm writing, then it probably wasn't/isn't newsworthy.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You being vetted as trustworthy does not absolve you from requiring to provide evidence. When reviewing your notes, I am trusting the source you used and your memory. Writing about something from a paywalled source and publishing it requires to put my faith in something I cannot myself see, let alone verify. And that is unacceptable. Gaining access to something which the reviewer is barred, and people generally are barred, is inadmissible. The reporter is trying to report without bias in an ideal case, factual; however, the info they provide is still dependent on the source they see. And paywall is a strict no. You want to go ahead and consider it by putting trust in it; go ahead. But I won't consider it verified should the information not be accessible to me. And that is precisely why we avoid the situation of ARs using "Oh believe me, I saw it" situation when they report something that cannot be verified from sources. (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've tried to make clear, I'm not a big fan of paywalled sources, here or anywhere for that matter. But let's make it simple:before today, have we had any policies that specifically address the topic in terms of guidance for sources?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate, considering that seems to be the most complete source of his work history. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm here, I'd like to give you a heads-up, there's another OR coming pretty soon (interview on Thursday, probably will start writing it later that day), and I don't want there to be too much of a backlog, so if you could put the Sirr article further up your priority queue that'd be great. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me[edit]'s fuzzy: What is the proper way to Wikilink stuff in an article? The syntax, I mean.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should be using {{w}} for wikilinking. {{wikt}} if you want to link to wiktionary. {{w|Foo}} will create a wikilink to Wikipedia page foo, if [[Foo]] does not exist. If it does, it will link to local page. {{w|Foo|Bar}} will create a link to foo, but the display text will be Bar. {{w|Foo|anchor=SomeSection}} will like to the subsection "SomeSection" of the page foo.
•–• 04:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I get it now. Thanks. And: that new 'Revision Slider' thing is cool! I don't know who made it, but I like it!--Bddpaux (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never figured out its use, and quite frankly, it just slows up the page so I don't use that.
•–• 16:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

When you get a moment..........[edit]

Could you ask Gryllida to check her Talk page....I requested a 'Crat take action and it appears we currently only have one.--Bddpaux (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She's been around here recently, but seemingly no action taken re: the RfP stuff. I contacted at least 4 Stewards at Meta, and only 1 replied. They wouldn't take action because we have a 'crat. But: well.........whatevs.......I guess we just wait......for who knows how long?--Bddpaux (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She said she will look soon. However, if you do want to message her in real time, consider joining IRC. Use as server, and use a username bddpaux and then type "/j #wn-reporters". Depending on the time, you will find LivelyRatification, gry, mikemoral and me there. Mike is on #wikinews and #wikinews-en too.
•–• 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
CC @Bddpaux:.
•–• 15:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my article[edit]

Please review Floods in central China kill 25 when you can. Pizza0614 (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for changing the categories for my user cat! —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 01:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the cats was easy. Wikifying and fixing the sources was the annoying part. In case if you use pywikibot, the command is: `python3 category move -from:"Mikemoral (Wikinewsie)" -to:"Chaetodipus (Wikinewsie)" -pt:0`. Make sure you use special:BotPasswords and enable editing protected pages. They need to be manually sighted.
•–• 04:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


Go here: Wikinews:Credential verification Why is my email address wrong, but yours isn't?--Bddpaux (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bddpaux: it was manually changed. (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Could you get on to complete accreditation? --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you.........[edit]

.....still reviewing that COVID article? I might be able to finish it, but I'd need to hear from you in the next 20 minutes, or so. Very busy with work right now.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am having trouble finding some things, maybe because of rapid fact changes? Maybe if you can have a look, that would be better -- but the numbers seem ot be off.
•–• 15:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
OK....I will; always a pet peeve of mine when source organizations don't actually create NEW articles......they just endlessly tweak a standing article.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly: sources weren't too bad. I massage'd it a bit more than I care to, but it was a good submission.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't bad, but they had fluctuating numbers.
•–• 15:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


Gry did respond, indicating she'd voted (I couldn't see where, though).....but was a wee bit vague on when she might take action on the action for 'Crats. Any ideas on your end?--Bddpaux (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To make sure I understand..........[edit]

Once an article is reviewed/published, the article is to be Protected. Auto-confirmed users can edit/add/take away (those changes must be sighted), but only Admins. can actually MOVE articles, right?--Bddpaux (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bddpaux: yes, that is correct. (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter?[edit]

Is that a bot? If so, how does it work?--Bddpaux (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bddpaux: it is an extension. If an edit matches a specified patter, those edits can be classified and further automated actions can be taken. More about it is here.
From a clean-up perspective, can you teach me how to do blocks? I should know how to do those.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bddpaux: Do you mean blocking accounts whose edits were caught in the filter? Or blocking accounts in general?
•–• 17:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


Please make sure I did protection correctly on that Australia article I just published.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again...........[edit]

What is the proper syntax for wikilinking (and why?) Why is the 'bad' way the bad way? Pandemic in that article took the reader straight to the Wikipedia article for the word 'pandemic'.--Bddpaux (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bddpaux: {{w}}. or you can scroll up, it was mentioned there. (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So the way pandemic was wikilink'd took the reader straight to Wikipedia. Is that good or bad? Are we (by using any links) hoping to ONLY link them to Cat pages here at WN? I'm sort of trying to figure out what the 'crime' is here, so-to-speak.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I feel linking to pandemic was redundant. Not like they don't know what pandemic is -- {{wikt}} would suit betteer for that purpose if we really want audience to know what pandemic means.
•–• 03:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


Re:this edit, I’ve seen how other wikis do this and it does not involve the ordinary REDIRECT magic word. They use a table but that is easily replaced by existing templates we already use, e.g. {{ombox}}. Very little of what I added matches other wikis word got word but there are obvious limits. Licensing differences don’t mean we cannot use wiki code. [24Cr][talk] 15:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing difference also means we cannot use wiki code as it is as under the license -- but I don't understand why we need to make it look like other wikis? We should *NOT* have category -> category redirects, after all. So it makes it a very rare thing to begin with.
•–• 15:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The licensing differences do not apply to wiki code unless there is wholesale copying. For example, as far as I know, there is only one way of putting in a condition like {{#ifeq:0|0||. It would be impossible to do that in my own words because those are the words needed for it to work. I agree we should not copy things wholesale but this is a snippet for an unavoidable thing. I’m not trying to make it look like other wikis except to improve wherever possible. As for whether to have category redirects, I have seen several categories which we don’t need because there are more relevant categories e.g. Category:Missing citations has not been used in a long time because we use the Sources template. I’ve redirected it to Category:Sources. Then there is Category:OTRS which needed to be moved to Category:VRT but we shouldn’t delete the old category because it might still be linked to from elsewhere. Finally I’ve moved Category:Interview to Category:Interviews which wouldn’t work well if I’d deleted the original category. So I’d say we need a redirect template to clarify to other users. To be fair, you must have had a reason to create the template in 2018. [24Cr][talk] 17:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, of course, those things are too simple to be copyrighted, I assumed we both had that in the back of our mind. When I created it, pi said we won't really require it, because cat->cat redirect is highly discouraged. But he didn't delete it, and it is sitting there, without any good use. Don't know what to do, but yes, your edits seem all right! Cheers!
•–• 17:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Team categories[edit]

Not so much encyclopedic as trying to bear in mind the unresolved discussion at Category talk:Cristiano Ronaldo. [24Cr][talk] 09:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I've tried to reach out multiple times on IRC, so I'll do so here as well. Could we arrange a time to do the review process, or, if necessary, expedite the process to another reviewer? --JJLiu112 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again, could we find a time? --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, could we find a time? @Acagastya: --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Switching accounts[edit]

Hello, it's ICameHereForNews. I am now using this account because I have decided that I would like to use this account as my global account. Could you please move my old userpage to my new userpage? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, please do the same thing with my talk page. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 21:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CheatCodes4ever: I think you should put {{doppelganger|CheatCodes4ever}} on user:ICameHereForNews and user talk:ICameHereForNews. Moving seems to be something I am not sure about; because the account wasn't renamed. (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I would like it moved is because I would like to have the history and content of my userpage. CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:61417197c2766.image.jpg copyright violation[edit]

@Henrymyman: and @LivelyRatification: as well; This file, in use on Inter-Korean communication lines restored, is a copyright violation. As has been repeatedly established in various deletion discussions on Commons (example), images from the Korean Central News Agency are not available under a license compatible with Commons requirements. I recommend immediate removal of this file from this news story. Best regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: It'll be replaced then. Henrymyman (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per archival policy, we can't replace the photo post-24-hour mark. We need commons admin to delete it (@Cromium:) and then we can mark that file as {{missing image}}. •–• 13:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent attacks in Afghanistan[edit]

Hello Acagastya, how are you doing?

Please see d:Q108905779 - as on some other Wikinews versions, both the recent attacks may be "wrapped" into one single article (to keep the topic "fresh" at the moment it is published, in line with your policy here). De Wikischim (talk) 22:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@De Wikischim: hi. If someone could translate and write it here (English sources would be greatly appreciated; as we don't have fr/nl speaking reviewers), maybe one of us could review. I can't promise anything, since I am pre-occupied for my exams. (talk) 04:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]