User talk:acagastya

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

acagastya/talk/Archive

Contents

File:2017 Bangalore ComicCon (media) IMG 0107.JPG[edit]

Just curious. Under what policy do you assert the right to control the caption? The caption is not part of the image. --SVTCobra 12:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

On a separate note, I apologise for assuming that you are the subject of the photo. It might have been because I was editing late at night. Green Giant (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I do have some rights reserved for the photo and can choose the caption I want to; and someone else adding a caption on the file page appears as if the author is endorsing it, which I am not. If you want to express who is in the photo, make use of description. Not a caption which I endorse. By the way, Green Giant, hi. Good to see you back. (Wish you would have been active earlier—but better late than never; Also; you should not stay away from project for longer durations, PeP would kick in, and you would be losing the rights.
•–• 13:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, I ask. what are those rights and where are they asserted? I don't see them in the human-readable summary of the license. --SVTCobra 16:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not endorse the caption, and summary != license. Adding the caption in caption field without my permission is act of endorsement that the author suggests this caption, though I do not. Click on the license link, and find out what is and what is not allowed. In any case, my photos, I decide what caption to be used, and it is '\0' For ComicCon media. Make use of description if you want to.
223.237.217.109 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

For your information, the following images that you uploaded lack license information:

Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone claiming to be you asserted that "this was handled off-wiki" or something like that. I assure you, that is insufficient. Things like: "usage “greatly” helps readers" is ultimately meaningless. Honestly, I don't think that person (223.237.252.103) was you, because you are so very careful with licensees. Therefore, I urge you to correct the situation. --SVTCobra 02:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I know you asked not to be pinged because you don't want e-mails, but then you should have turned off e-mail notification. I am doing this as an official notification of lack of license. --SVTCobra 03:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Can't see the motivation to ping the user on their talk page, even if pings are disabled, email is sent for talk page messages.
•–• 23:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If you see, each media with copyrighted elements (Thor, Captain America, Hulk, The Tick, the manga character) -- they all have the fair use rationale. It isn't written in {{peacock}} terms. You aren't really supposed to do anything with the off-wiki discussion, evidently, you were not able to catch up with the on-wiki discussions, so off would be futile. This message actually wasted my time, for a moment I thought I did not write a rationale.
•–• 00:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
A couple of questions. India has freedom of panorama, so photographing public displays of art (copyrighted or not) is within your rights, is it not? Did you attend ComicCon with your press credentials? If so, you are afforded additional rights.
Specifically regarding 0120 and 0123, did the artist know you were photographing their work in progress and for what purpose? Given the close-up nature of the photos, I assume the artist knew you took photos, but if you stated that you were with Wikinews, and the artist permitted the photos, then you have implicit permission to publish them under your preferred license. Also, it is a work in progress, so it is not the final copyrightable form.
Certainly, we could rely on the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act of 1957, but I feel that these photos are as much your work as the work of the copyright holders. If you only assert fair-dealing/fair-use, then anyone could reuse them and assert the same.
Finally, if you are certain you want to stay with fair-use/fair-dealing for these images, Wikinews' fair use policy states that "you must add both the correct copyright tag and a fair use rationale for each use in any article". If we do not have an appropriate copyright tag for these images, we can create one. But it is necessary to have. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
FoP has a clause for publicly accessible, which it was not. One had to spend at least ₹400 to enter the KTPO centre. There is also a clause of being permanently available in publicly accessible place — less than a week duration is nowhere close to be called permanent. I guess that deals with Marvel characters. For manga characters, consent of photograph does not mean I have the right to upload. They are two different things, let alone me choosing the license. Unlike basket weaving (it requires skill, and it is an art, but not copyrightable) like this, the sketch was easily above ToO. And since it is the main subject, it cannot be under de minimis. (It is de maximums or de primus if such thing exists) For the tattoo, the copyright of the web-series is with Amazon.com and for the comic…its publisher/author/creator. If you sketch a photo of Spider-Man, and take a photo of it, you can not sell it. So is true with drawing Disney princesses. Belle’s story is under public domain, but if you specifically draw her like how she appears in Disney movies, it is a derivative work of a copyrighted content. Just like this photo is not allowed on Commons: link though I drew it in MS Paint in my own. Ask Green Giant if you wish to know more) similarly, photos like this are not acceptable for a free license as well. Reason: I did not create the typeface. (Exception: public domain fonts)

Indian Copyright Act was amended almost 6 times, you used an old one. But, the photo was taken moments before completion — there was a hiccup, an error, and the screen went blank, and while trying to revert it, since tablet does not have a keyboard for Ctrl+Z, it took time, and then, there was a power supply interruption, but when it was restored, he just signed it and left. Missing a signature is not enough to call it incomplete. (See the Tick’s tattoo in initial stage) distance? Well, I was less than a metre away, but I don’t think that is how you should think. I took this photo from almost 20 metres from the subject, not easy to tell. If copyright tag is important, I need to make sure it is not misused (there have been so many cases where people did not respect CC license terms, discussed above) so I am not surrendering any of my rights of this photo. I have uploaded it on the servers located in the US with full conciousness, and unlike other photos (which had no ambiguity about the copyright status of the work) this is (c) Agastya Chandrakant.
•–• 00:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that I am not fully updated on the amendments to the Copyright Act. What were the changes? (you can just give me a link to current law if that is easier). In the US, a ticket price does not preclude a place from being public. But maybe that's different in India.
The drawing artist did have a signature on the work in 0123, but was the artist not copying other Manga or characters to which they don't really own copyright?
You mention de minimis which is a requirement of fair-use/fair-dealing. By not asserting your rights, you are handing them back to the subject of the photo. And by not being de minimis nor licensed by you, it would be de jure fully reverted to the subject's (Thor, Cap. America, Hulk, etc) intellectual property, by many standards. Though, I am not sure if that applies to India. (No mention of it in the original 1957 law).
There are many images of a similar nature on Commons. I do not think you should be afraid to assert CC-BY-IN (whatever your preferred version is). It gives you legal right to demand attribution at the very least. What's the worst that could happen? DC Comics or Marvel or Amazon says, you can't use that license? OK, we change it to fair-use/fair-dealing. There is no risk. It would possibly be different if you were profiting off of the images, but you are not. So they couldn't even prove damages. Besides that, there are tons of similar images of displays at various ComicCons on Commons.
P.S. Some of the costumes are so good that they could be considered copyright violations themselves. LOL. If you want to stick with fair-use/fair-dealing, I will make a copyright tag and let you approve it before adding it to the images. Cheers,--SVTCobra 02:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Costumes do not account for copyvio -- and in general, photographs of cosplayers will not violate copyright -- I read the discussion (on wp or com, perhaps). The artist drew it on the spot, and did not refer any photographs. I did not say de minimis is required for FU, I said the primary subject of the photo was something that is copyrightable (and well above ToO) hence, I can not release it under free license.
•–• 03:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
In general, photographs of official mannequins on display will not violate copyright, either. The copyright owners want people to see them.
The "did not refer to photographs" for the drawing artist is not a legal claim. If I memorize a poem, can I write it down again without 'looking at the original' and claim it to be my copyright? I think not.
But you did avoid answering my questions: a) Did you use your press credentials? b) Did you tell the artist why you photographed their art? (I am not accepting your insinuation that you used a tele-lens for it.)
Don't be afraid to assert some rights. --SVTCobra 03:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I got media accreditation because of press credentials, and I had asked every single person before taking the photos if they are okay with it being used for Wikinews. (except for cosplayers on stage -- that is not practically possible) There are some basic steps for drawing a manga character -- and even if it is copyrighted, it is under FU. For my rights, I specified, (c) Agastya Chandrakant. I am not dropping any of my rights because I don't want to find out my photos were used by various people which violated terms and conditions. Unlike the DMCA in the US, I can't do much in India. I am pretty sure that photo was not taken from a publicly accessible [that means you do not have to pay anything to be at that place] location, or is there as a permanent display (unlike that Golden colour Bull somewhere in the US)
•–• 03:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
for the record — mannequin photo was deleted from Commons link.
•–• 01:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:CC BY-ND 2.5 IN[edit]

Hello. Regarding this edit, I didn't add any photos to the template. If you're referring to the icons, they are the ones that are used at the Creative Commons website. I'm not sure why it would take much longer to load them than any other CC license. If it is a loading problem why don't we use the standard CC template and add an Indian flag icon perhaps? Green Giant (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

They are unnecessary additions, which do not add any significant meaning. They do not contribute much, except for slower load time. Not everyone is blessed with high speed internet. Currently browsing at 10 kB/s — do you seriously think it has any use? Also, I reverted the textual changes which I had used from the target page. And the template — avoiding any ambiguous claims of license breach, by making use of home grown 100% fit {{msg}}.
223.237.217.33 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I'd disagree about the meaning in that they convey the essence of the license in easily understandable symbols. Certainly for many people, symbols are more useful than a chunk of text. I am not sure I know of many people outside legal circles who would want to read terms and conditions. Would it not be simpler to perhaps leave out the text of the summary and let people click on the link if they want to read more? Please have a look at the latest version of {{CC BY-ND 2.5 IN/Sandbox}} and tell me what you think. As for low-speed internet, I do understand because I live in a fairly rural valley in the UK and have yet to benefit from high-speed internet at home. When I have to do intensive editing, I sometimes go to the nearest major public library but even that is for a one-hour slot; alternatively I sit in a cafe and go through a couple of cups of tea so they don't think I'm only there for their WiFi! Green Giant (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
symbol only helps those who know about it, and that too, not necessarily. (Difference between CC BY and CC BY-SA for example) Last month, I had to inform at least half a dozen websites that they were using photos that I had clicked, which violated the terms (I do that, some times) and I had to explain the licensing team what they had gotten wrong. Symbols really don’t convey much meaning (don’t forget Noncommercial has a slashed dollar sign, in total bias of first world countries) and it can never replace text. Especially for a license. By the way, I think “rural UK” was too much to reveal for a person who prefers to maintain anonymity — it doesn’t reveal anything, but now, I know in which time zone you work.
223.237.240.175 (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I think the CC icons are fairly widespread now, although I too encounter users who don't understand the license of the image they were copying. Quite often they haven't read the license as a whole rather than just ignoring the text or the icons. I have copied over {{CC-country-flags}} from Commons and will look into adapting {{CC}} to accept country specific entries. I think that will be the best approach, although I am not negating your customised approach either. Let's leave this conversation till I have worked out the intricacies of the templates. By the way I don't mind people knowing that I live in a rural part of the UK - there are about 3 million rural folk here in an area slightly smaller than Uttar Pradesh. If a checkuser wanted to, I am sure they could pinpoint my general area, although they wouldn't have a reason to check me anyway! In fact there is one OTRS admin who knew my real name when I joined OTRS but they are not an OTRS admin anymore and I doubt they remember it. My OTRS pseudonym is related to my real name but I would pity the poor soul who would waste time trying to decipher it! Green Giant (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
There are people who clearly try to invade others privacy. Pitying with them does not help.
223.237.228.203 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in here, but the addition of the symbols amount to something like 80kb when loading an image page that is measured in MB. This cannot seriously be a consideration for image templates. --SVTCobra 02:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

{{img}}[edit]

This template does't play well with WN:Make lead: images displayed via {{img}} are not noticed by WN:Make lead. --Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't care for this template. The fact that "File:" has to be omitted, means one cannot just double-click and copy the file name from Commons (or locally). I would like the "reuse terms" thingy if it actually just was a pop-up of the license, but it is just a link to the image itself. Not helpful. With some improvements, I could see myself using it, but not really in its current form, especially with Pi zero's concern. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
"File:" is an obsolete string. It depends on how we copy things. For pizero's concerns, I am looking at the JS, and I would be able to fix it. The way reuse terms was created, thb, it was not properly thought, and not the best template I have came across, so far. Reuse terms is more important than any other comfort. Pop-up is not a good idea -- creativecommons.org uses pop-ups, and their website is not mobile compatible. The {{translated quote}} which I am so proud of, which works without JS, it managed to fail on Safari for iOS -- and I am figuring out why. Current analysis -- pop-up is not the best idea, and what is more important? link to license information, or how one copies the string. (side note, whenever I add an image, I go on to type "[[File:]]" and then copy only the title)
•–• 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero, SVTCobra: easy fix — the template was created so that we can avoid typing the file name for reuse terms. So, just subst: it and let software do the hardwork. That solves MakeLead issue.
223.237.202.121 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
This template does not show "reuse terms" it just does the same thing as clicking on the image. If you can fix it to where it displays "CC-BY-2.5" or "USGov-PD" or whatever the case may be, then it is useful. For now, I see it as confusing to use and not helpful. --SVTCobra 18:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
actually it is not confusing. Without mentioning reuse terms, people who are not familiar with the software do not know how to check for the reuse terms, which, by the way, CC license demands a link to original file; and a link to license, that too, explicitly. Since BRS did not like it, and pizero, despite the official confirmation I had received from creativecommons; decided not to mention link “after sitting at the fence”, the best way to let noobs know about the reuse terms is by a link which says reuse terms; and not by guessing that they have to click the image. Think about it; do you find copyright information about photos when you click them, on other news websites?
•–• 18:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer[edit]

I've closed your reapplication for reviewer as successful, and restored your bit.

(I'm not aware of any traditional nickname for our reviewer privs, along the lines of the ha-ha-only-serious nickname for admin privs "mop and bucket". Perhaps "red sharpie"?) --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Can't see how it is related to "red sharpie".
•–• 16:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sighting[edit]

Somehow, a revision of the unpublished Giroud article got sighted. I unsighted it for you. (When a revision of an unpublished article gets sighted, unsight it by viewing it, scrolling down to the bottom of the page, and clicking "unaccept revision". Then check to make sure there are't any other sighted revisions.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Did I sight it? I should be more careful about it. By the way, I know about unsighting -- because of Wikibooks.
•–• 16:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Templates[edit]

Some that occur to me (not mentioning other templates that these require):

For additional suggestions — keeping in mind our templates also include a lot of cruft from the early days that's not used much and might be better left out of a clean set-up — see Wikinews:Template messages.

Of course, our existing automation, consisting mainly of easy-peer-review and make-lead, small though it might seem, is extremely valuable in reducing difficulty of maintenance tasks; I think difficulty of doing ordinary things has been part of the downfall of some Wikinews projects, because when news production is so difficult in its essential elements, it can be very damaging to have great difficulty in accidental elements as well. And my answer for that would be based on the dialog tools, but even if that were fully developed I doubt the feasibility of the dialog tools in incubation. --Pi zero (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: thank you for leaving a note, but I think you missed {{xambox}} -- it is one of the most crucial information templates for non-article pages, and also for yet-to-be published articles. Just like how we might not need {{w}} always, but it has an implicit call in {{sources}}. So could you also list all those trivial ones, please?
118.151.209.30 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: also a list of important [tracking] categories -- dates, yes.
•–• 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Poet, lyricist, and digital activist John Perry Barlow dies, aged 70[edit]

Thanks, man. I'm getting sleepy and I said most all that I could say for now. I would like to follow up with tributes in a day or two but for the obit, this is all I have. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Remark about your way of commenting[edit]

I suppose this was you? Your often negative comments on my edits here (and sometimes on me as a person) are beginning to annoy me. De Wikischim (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that comment — the story is four days old and is no longer fresh. And the current headline says nothing unique which is one of the the most important things about writing a headline. Israel strikes whom? What is F-16? Israel has been striking for years! Make it unique. Add that crucial information. I need not tell you how to write headline, you have been writing articles for quite a long time.
•–• 09:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. Well, the main focus of the news article is the second air raid by Israel, which seems to have happened on Saturday. So the news is 3 days old now, not 4. By the way, I have been active and writing on the Dutch Wikinews version mainly, not much yet on this one (as you should remember too). De Wikischim (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The art of writing headline does not change with the language. As for the freshness is concerned; the lede speaks of something that happened on Saturday, but the second paragraph speaks about the background information. I understand background information is necessary for understanding the article, but that does not mean the article should explain the background first, and then say about what happened now (that approach is purely encyclopaedic for the archival record) Speak about the latest developments in the upper part of the article and stuff that background information at the bottom part.
•–• 10:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I've just changed this (before I read this last comment) so the background info about the downing of the F-16 is now discussed in detail in the third paragraph, instead of the second one. Thanks for giving me advice - perhaps I for my part was just a little too insulted hereabove. De Wikischim (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Tino Ranger uploads[edit]

User Tino Ranger locally uploaded a couple of files, and I started to treat it the way I usually do — block for 'local upload abuse', nuke, leave note on user talk page — but then wondered, noting some hint of 'Hindu Wikinews' in one of the image names. Don't suppose you can offer any insight into this? --Pi zero (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

looking at the log; I saw "Hindio-News" and has nothing to do with hiwn, as far as I know. By the way, working in incubator is difficult to track recent changes.
•–• 01:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing screen cast: record your video?[edit]

Hello! To help identify the reviewing efficiency bottlenecks and design adequate technical solutions please consider filming a screencast of yourself reviewing 2-3 different articles at your convenience. Upload your videos and tag them with Category:Wikinews training materials review screencasts. (This page has motivations and notes on the analysis of reviewing videos.) Thank you. --Gryllida 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

would have, but I don’t review from one single device. My laptop would crash very frequently — ten minutes or so — and thus I would even review from my phone. Besides, the way I review, most of the work happens off-wiki than on-wiki. I make notes, write in my joy. So screen recording would not help.
•–• 05:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Links in table[edit]

Re: diff United States wasn't linked in the table because you hadn't linked it when you created it. It appeared to be consistent with the way you didn't repeat links that appeared in the article itself. I did not de-link anything, and the only thing I added was Mexico to the Gulf of California. You can see it here in this diff. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: You should be knowing -- I often comment a lot about my previous revisions. Sometimes in first person, sometimes second, sometimes third.
•–• 06:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: US: New flu strain continues epidemic sweeping across Texas[edit]

Tips:

  • When starting to write about an event, double-check what and when happened; some mainstream media will be confused about it themselves and not provide links to the report which they are re-reporting, or its publish date.

Story is marked as abandoned; to be deleted on March 7 (in 2 days), if work on it does not resume.

--Gryllida (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: are you sure you wanted to tell me about the article? That is not my article. And, if the information about “When” and “what” is not mentioned in the lede, newsworthiness and focal point issue (respectively) would prohibit the article from being published. This is nothing new — BBC often fails to answer “when”. And we have learned how to find the answer to when.
•–• 16:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

State of emergency in Sri Lanka fails to stop violence[edit]

This is what I wrote in response to your request. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding comment on RfP[edit]

Hi. If you want to have a discussion about this diff, I suggest we do it on your or my talk page, not there. I hope you will shorten or eliminate the comment on RfP if, as you say, it doesn't pertain to the nomination.

Nevertheless, I will answer one of your points, which was the one about pointing to policy. As far as I know, I pointed to policy when you accused me of violating policy. P.S. I put up an article about China. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

I have noticed your edit summaries have become quite inappropriate. May I suggest you tone it down? --SVTCobra 17:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your dedicated effort[edit]

Though I have plenty of experience as a Wikipedia editor, I needed to find some time to become a successful editor in Wikinews as well. I wanted to thank you for clearing my mistakes in the article with a new perfect header, Cricket Australia bans Steve Smith, David Warner for one year after ball tampering incident. Thanks once again in updating the content in the article as you have helped for the second time in my Wikinews career after my debut article, Death toll exceeds 200 after heavy rain and mudslides in Sri Lanka. Abishe (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Abishe: While trying to fix the article (by the way, I hope you saw Pi zero's notes on talk page) I had removed certain details which you had added. Feel free to add it again. I worked around what I thought was crucial and if someone feels something is missing, feel free to edit.
•–• 11:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous editing[edit]

When editing anonymously, please consider adding your Acagastya nick to edit summaries and signatures. Then others know what talk page to post their questions on if they would like to follow up one of your recent edits. --Gryllida (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you can not ignore the possibility that any anonymous editor can add “Acagastya” to their edits and I would be at loss.
•–• 06:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Use 2FA and login each time? Then logged out editing is unneeded? Gryllida (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I thought I made it clear that I do not log out and edit; I edit in any situation possible; unless name of speaker is more important than what they are saying is important. Do you think I type my 20+ character long password every single time on my slow internet on my phone with 2.3" wide screen.
•–• 11:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Store the password on the phone in encrypted form. --Gryllida (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I have a simpler solution. Focus on the content of the comment, what it is trying to convey; instead of who is conveying it. When it is needed, I login and edit that time.
•–• 12:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You know, I can see both sides of this. It's certainly true a valid observation is still valid if made anonymously; then again, as a reviewer, I'm aware it helps, when tasked with assessing something, to know it was written by an experienced user, so that one knows to be particularly alert for the sort of mistakes an experienced user is more likely to make, rather than to beware every sort of difficulty might arise with something by an unknown author. --Pi zero (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Pi zero: as I understand, the edits being discussed are non-main space edits. These days I don’t write articles without logging in.
•–• 12:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That's my understanding, also. I'm just suggesting there is a similar sort of effect, on a smaller scale of course, that can go on with remarks on talk pages. --Pi zero (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Weels[edit]

Hello, he is a LTA, and locked globally, so he can't be unblocked here. IMO no reason to let him write such harsh words. Stryn (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Stryn: Let's not assume the genders. Re harsh words, this is nothing, partly because we don't have an AGF, this is fine.
•–• 12:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Avicii[edit]

I didn't want the tweet in external, but in sources, Pi moved it. But see this Pixar Studios animator Bud Luckey, designer of Toy Story's Woody, dies aged 83, where you put a Facebook post in external. And Margot Duhalde, Chile's first female military pilot, dies aged 97 for an example where you put a tweet in sources. --SVTCobra 03:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(/me tried to avoid bringing up “read the sources” thing) in the first article that you have mentioned, the Facebook post serves the official statement. I did not include any quotes from that statement. In the second article you have mentioned, the president’s tweet was in Spanish, but in the sources, it was translated to English. I prefer to use original quotes in the article, and I am ready to spend time and energy on it. I did it for Marshall Khan article, which I still don’t know how to deal with when the language has two scripts. And in Avicii’s case: other sources mention Madonna’s tweet and it is in English.
•–• 04:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, But don'T we prefer primary sources when available instead of relying on secondary sources? --SVTCobra 04:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
<dropping in> The sources section is, after all, a list provided by the reporter of what they actually used. It's not a linkfarm. If the tweet itself wasn't used in writing the article, it does not belong in the sources section. --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, personal choice. I don't want to elaborate on my way of extracting facts, but I tend to minimise the number of sources to draw facts in such a manner that a source which serves as a proper subset is left off before I write the article.
•–• 04:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This is not the first time you commented on my choice of preference; besides, the "primary source" thing does not work every time. Some reviewers want to see what secondary sources have to say about it. eg LinkedIn to be acquired by Microsoft.
•–• 04:26, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's talk[edit]

From your edit summary: "you want to negate everything that I do" ... I think that is demonstrably false. Yet, at the same time I feel that you oppose and reject every single decision I make in my role as a sysop. Even if I make a decision that was completely the same as Pi zero, to which you did not object, you jump up and cause a big scene if I was the one who enforced the rule or followed convention. I'll have you know that I even over-ruled several of Pi zero's decisions during the "Match Report" downstyle project in favor of you. --SVTCobra 13:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

(definitely need to login for this) We cross each other a lot, so one feeling that the other is trying to negate is something that is ought to happen. I have written over 300 articles, and of which 297 were published. Out of them, I bet Pi zero published at least 290 articles. It is no secret that I have learned most of the things from Pi zero. Hence, a significant number of the ideas and concepts that I have, they are similar to Pi zero's. And when we (me and Pi zero) end up disagreeing, (and yes, that happens very frequently) there is a lot happening which you don't see on-wiki. I have picked up certain things from Bddpaux, Tom Morris, Gryllida, Brian McNeil, Blood Red Sandman -- but most of the things came from Pi zero. What I turned into, I must be a huge disappointment for Pi zero, I am a failed student in certain perspectives. Believe me, the user whom I disagree the most is Pi zero. Pi zero receives more criticism whenever we disagree, but I don't think it ever went personal. We somehow stayed on topic, for most of the time. But since you do not use IRC, or have email option enabled, most of our (you and me) disagreement is on-wiki, and we don't sort it out that efficiently. Maybe we should have discussions on IRC, which are swifter, though not as good as an instant messenger, and maybe I should not be making personal attacks. Well, TL;DR: I disagree with almost everyone, somehow we both end up making it personal. I don't think I understood what you were trying to say about "Match Report" -- was it renaming the category? I guess Pi zero has said this on-wiki, on some page that certain things just happened in the beginning, and later it grew to be too big to fix the problems. I, however, feel that certain things should be fixed as soon as possible, but we don't find "copious free time". I had ever requested admin rights to fight vandalism, and do the renaming, categorisation, wikifying work, so that Pi zero could focus on dialog tools, and other things of greater priority. However, I was declined twice. The reason to create admin dashboard was so that if I can't make those changes, as I did not have the rights, at least I could flag them. Just a (rather useless, and pointless) reminder, I am accustomed to working with only one admin + reviewer (that that should be no surprise.) I don't know if this is what I should be answering, but this had to come out some day.
•–• 15:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for you honesty and lengthy reply. Let me tell you first why I don't participate in IRC. It is not that I am anti-social or anything like that. I seriously believe that a wiki should be on-wiki and all decisions made there. Inevitably, an IRC chat will lead to some edit with the reasoning "We Decided" (off-wiki) and I've never thought that to be fair to the casual user of Wikinews or Wikipedia. That is why I make WN:CABAL jokes. I do that to encourage people to fully explain the decision on-wiki. "It was decided off-wiki" really grinds me to no end. And I saw it before my 'come-back'. Early on, I decided against IRC. I'd treat Wikinews as a profession, not a club of friends.
Wikinews was a little more than a year old when I joined, I think. Brian McNeil, Bawolff, Blood Red Sandman, Jcart were some of the more influential compatriots at the time. I think Pi zero was just phasing in as I was was phasing out. And yes, it does look like you and Pi zero became somewhat of a lonesome tandem in recent times.
Perhaps this made you territorial. I don't know. But I was shocked at how aggressively you attacked everything I did when I came back to active editing. Would you do the same to Brian McNeil? I don't mean to put myself on his level, but still, I am one of the elders. So, when someone attacks my credibility, I need to defend it. Well, we all know where it went from there.
P.S. In the "Match Reports", especially about Bundesliga, I found requests from you to add to the category Category:Bundesliga. Pi zero had repeatedly turned them down, saying the cat should be about league news, not matches. I thought this to be crazy. What doesn't belong more in a Bundesliga category than a Bundesliga match? So I added whenever I saw them.
Cheers, I hope we can work together more smoothly in the future. --SVTCobra 16:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think I understood what your "lonesome tandem" comment meant. All I can say is our (me and Pizero's) discussions are friendly constructive-criticism based, where I am the one attacking and they are the one explaining me everything. As far as Brian McNeil's position is concerned, we had very limited conversation, and mostly because I was under a requested block (to focus on exams, yet edited from static IP) and I can't recall having a discussion after when they said sports articles are 'breads and circuses' -- I had written five articles that day, all five were football match reports, I guess I have written around 170 football till date. But I believe, I started writing about other topics after those comments, which I felt harsh -- well, almost everything seems to be harsh when you are a seventeen-year-old boy, I assume.
•–• 17:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
<Pi zero drops in; pardon>

@Acagastya: For the record, you are not a "huge disappointment" to me. On a project with a review system such as en.wn's, there is inevitably a phase transition that hopefully takes place, from a newcomer who doesn't yet grok the system, to an insider ("Wikinewsie") who does grok and whose disagreements on policy are fundamentally clueful. Many users never get past the grey area between the two phases. You, imo, have got past the grey area and are solidly an insider; we all keep learning, but when you disagree with me I take your opinion seriously, and I welcome not only having an ally on "hard news" issues (I notice mentors of mine amongst your list of other influences) but also having a colleague with independent opinions who's willing to disagree with me.

Re IRC (@SVTCobra): On one hand, I agree that one should generally try to avoid "decided on IRC" situations. On the other hand, IRC can be a very potent tool for communicating understanding, as remarks can be made more casually than on-wiki, so that reporter and reviewer can get much closer views of each other's thinking. I suspect Acagastya wouldn't have picked up so much of my thinking without IRC. Laura Hale used to hang around IRC during writing and reviewing of her articles, and it wasn't obvious just how much benefit she was getting out of it until near the end of her time here, when she was apparently distancing herself from the community, and her last few articles were submitted without connecting to IRC with the result that problems were vastly harder to handle in real time and she had a lot more trouble getting things published. (Without IRC, problems during review usually require a not-ready/revise/resubmit cycle.) I recall a few times with DragonFire1024 where we managed to get synthesis published in remarkably short timeframes thanks to interaction on IRC (iirc we once beat AP to press with a trending story from the southeast US). --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should chat on Telegram so Pi zero doesn't spy on our conversations. --SVTCobra 17:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, you know my username.
•–• 23:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Stale?[edit]

Stale and do not self publish is all you had to say about this: लाल किला 25 करोड़ रुपयेमे अपनाया डालमिया भारत समूहने???? How about the most glaring problem with the submission? --SVTCobra 06:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not check for the copyright issues -- I slept very late after writing the article *and* translating one of the sources. I thought about writing (and/or translating) this article, but turns out that it is stale. I am currently fixing certain things in my article (higher priority because it is a published story), so flagging it stale is one of the things I could quickly do. I know there is chunk of things to do, like mark it for deletion for foreign language article, suggest moving to appropriate project, tell the author what the problem is , about freshness, style guide, and language, tell the person who "published" the article that they can not publish articles, but that can wait for some time, I believe.
•–• 06:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, by the way, even though translating is easy, doing it at 3 in the morning with severe headache makes it difficult. (Just a note if you or anyone ever wants me to translate Hindi to English)
•–• 06:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Did you notice that those same two authors also self-published a piece of spam? --SVTCobra 06:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

3 in the morning? It's nearly that time here. Isn't it afternoon for you? --SVTCobra 06:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I slept after 4:17. I did not note that they spammed the main space, however, that article in Hindi was newsworthy once, with sources title matching the focus of the story. I don't go for who wrote it, but what they wrote. But if they write something which is no longer fresh, there isn't much I can do.
•–• 06:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

We should not be partisan in these kinds of matters. The whole of Kashmir is disputed, and no part of the Indian state is outside the disputed area. I see no harm in highlighting it is part of a disputed region. Green Giant (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Jammu, Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, PoK, IAK, CAK everything is different from one another, some don't even overlap. ANd actually, there are disputes in the North Easter Region as well.
•–• 18:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... Let’s not confuse the issues. As far as I recall from the numerous protracted debates on English Wikipedia, the Indian, Chinese and Pakistani administered areas all overlap. India claims the whole of the former princely state but governs about half. Pakistan claims the whole as well but governs about a third. China claims and controls the northeastern part. They are not different from each other but all form part of the dispute. It doesn’t serve us well to take sides, when we should really be neutral. Green Giant (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Definitely you did not understand what I meant when I said "some don't even overlap" -- that means either one is proper subset of the other, or they are disjoint (PoK, CAK are disjoint) BEsides, let me make this clear -- I am not taking sides. The only bias which can be slipped in is because the schools do not teach the truth when the school board is regulated by the government -- they never told me Jerusalem was not accepted as Israel's capital, and six months ago, I did not know that case.
•–• 19:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikinewsies should never get into into Wikipedia-style debates. We don't have time, and our policies and practices are meant to avoid such labor-intensive nonsense.

The only question we need to answer here is, does Pakistan claim all of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir? --Pi zero (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

"does Pakistan claim all of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir?" No. (Also, btw, a baseless claim does not do any good -- Trump claims he is a stable genius. I beg to differ)
•–• 20:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We still get to report when he tells everyone how brilliant he is, though. --Pi zero (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(Clarification: a dispute between nations is a dispute between nations, regardless of how anyone justifies their position.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
at least this case s different from China vs Taipei or Israel vs Palestine.
•–• 21:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, without wanting to complexify things, I have found this resolution by the Pakistani National Assembly, from 11 April 2018. It is one of a number of such resolutions and it seems they dispute the Indian claim to Kashmir. From a little further back, there is this comment in 2014 by the Pakistani minister for Kashmir, in which he says "Pakistanis consider Pakistan incomplete without Kashmir". Finally there is the official website, which has a fuzzy map at the top left, which appears to include more than just the Pakistani-controlled areas. That seems to be an unequivocal claim to the territory controlled by India. I would say this all suggests the answer to the question is "yes", Pakistan does claim the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Green Giant (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir". Seems straightforward enough. --Pi zero (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I might also add that article 257 of the Pakistani constitution seems to make an assumption that Jammu and Kashmir will "accede to Pakistan" at some point. I don’t think that leaves any doubt on their position. Green Giant (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The question is: does Pakistan claim entire Jammu and Kashmir? And the answer is no. If it weren’t the case, I should not have been allowed to visit JK, JK people should receive Pakistani passport, and Pakistani law should apply. Well, recently, Asifa Bano’s father approached SCoI, and SCoI made a ruling. None of that should have been possible if Pakistan had 100% claim. The thing about claiming is just like asking a person if they want a million dollars or ten dollars. When you are getting more, why would you say no? But in this case if it was true, Bano’s family would have appealed in Pakistani SC.
•–• 04:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
That's not about whether Pakistan claims it, that's about whether Pakistan has the power to enforce their claim. --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In that case, Pakistan has been trying to get JK for ages. So many wars fought, movies about those wars released, soldiers won Param Veer Chakra. Just to make it clear, Azad means independent but Azad Kashmir is a province and it is not same s JK.
•–• 04:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Berlin court: neutrality law above German religious freedom, bans teacher headscarves in primary school[edit]

Reviewed and published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What you might not have noticed is that it was my 300th published article, took me three years and twelve days since my first edit; otherwise eight days short of three years since my first published article.
•–• 04:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah well, double congratulations then. Keep it up. :) Green Giant (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
300! --Pi zero (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
[[:File:Wikinews Lead Reporter.png|thumb|left|150px|Congratulations. You have triple earned the title of Lead Reporter. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)]]
(Converted the award photo to photo link so that it is easy to follow through the thread) Thank you Green Giant, Pi zero and SVTCobra. Well, the credit goes to Pi zero, for reviewing at least 290 of them; for teaching me how to even write an article, Bddpaux, Tom Morris, Brian McNeil, Bencherlite, BRS, Bawolff, RockerballAustralia, Gryllida and all those who wrote, and reviewed the aricles in the archives. To Zanimum for my first formal interview as an accredited reporter, and many more whom I forgot to mention. Exactly three years ago, I was wondering what would happen in my entrance exams and was literally "lost", both on-wiki and off-wiki. back then, I did not know how to convince Pi zero that it was the best I could write so please do something about it! Gong to bed hoping the article gets published. I still hope the same (unless I stay up until article is published) but maybe that joy has vanished over time. There was a time when I hoped there were no review comments, meaning the article was "okay", and then there is this day when I want review comments so that I can improve upon minute things. It has been an incredible journey so far. BTW, SVTCobra, I can not tripple earn that award -- it has a range, 100-500 and I am below 500. Still, a long way to go. Let's see how many can I get published until I am no longer a teen.
•–• 23:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Just fell ten short of 400. Would have been something. But well, 390 isn't that bad.
•–• 00:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Emoji redirects[edit]

I have no way of finding these redirects, like the 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 which we discussed. I think you are probably the only person to have created such redirects. Are there more than the England and Scotland ones? If so, could you please add them to Category:Emoji redirects? I can't do it myself since I can't find them and have no tool for searching for them. Thanks, --SVTCobra 02:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: You might find useful the DPL at Category:Discretionary mainspace redirects. --Pi zero (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
or the hard way, that is [https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=&limit=100&contribs=user&target=Acagastya&namespace=&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end= list of last 100 pages I have created. I started with India’s
103.254.128.130 (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

File:SupprFfnet 052012.jpg[edit]

I know you are very much an advocate for the rights of original content creators. What are your thoughts on this image? I'd appreciate if you could spare a few minutes. Thanks, --SVTCobra 12:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

You should not be knowing that -- have you been intercepting and reading my private messages lately? Well, for the problem with the table, which I noticed this afternoon; here are my thoughts:
  1. Fonts do not have copyright in the US.
  2. The data in the table (which is not copyrightable, unlike what Pi zero said for the Eurovision article) can not be copyrightable:
    1. The reason is, it is below the threshold of originality (ToO) -- there is no element of creativity involved. Putting the data available publicly is not something copyrightable. Think of it like this: a table consisting of names and administrative capital of all the countries in Africa -- that is not copyrightable. There should be some sort of creativity involved -- but now that I think of it, will the exclusive information qualify for "creativity" or a "special" status? Considering Gry's research, I think I should ping them for the response even if there could be a CoI -- @Gryllida: (she checks her talk, so she might even see the echo notification)
  3. Usage of publicly available information may not necessarily be non-copyrightable. See the photos of data visualisation of digits of pi. Here, the element of creativity was how to form the design, and the code used to make that data visualisation.
    •–• 13:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Commonwealth confirms receiving Zimbabwe's application to rejoin the bloc[edit]

Reviewed and published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikitribune.com[edit]

just asking if u can join this new project by jimbo wales. its like wikinews but i think its better. just saying. thanks. i should have a right to freely advetise cuz wikitribune.com is pilot. new project. --Tribuneman2018 (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Convince me. I did not join Wikinews because of Wales. It is not like Wikinews because it publishes opinions. And I have a right to say no. Is there anything else you have to say?
223.237.193.237 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Londonese"[edit]

I didn't just pull the idea out of my hat. I did google searches for both "Londonese" and "Londonese club". And I looked at Londonese on Wiktionary and other dictionaries. If you want to make a case for future use of "Londonese" let's have the talk now. BTW, I don't think there's anything misleading or incorrect about saying "London club". And you should know I also changed it in Football: Chelsea beats Manchester United 1-0 to win English FA Cup, pending review. --SVTCobra 11:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between "a London club" and "the London club".
•–• 12:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeaahh, correct ... one is an indefinite article and the other is a definite article ... where are you going with this? --SVTCobra 12:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Difference between "London club" and "London-based club", perhaps? I can see how "London-based" is clearer. Though I hope we don't blow this all out of proportion; it's desirable to make these things crisply lucid, but if in the process we leave behind in the archives some things that are merely clear enough to be getting on with, c'est la vie. --Pi zero (talk)

Italian club SSC Napoli appoints Carlo Ancelotti as their new manager[edit]

Review passed. Congratulations. (Yes I know you are aware but it is courteous to inform on your talkpage). Green Giant (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I know -- these messages were one of my favourites when I was a noob here, but after some time, Pi zero stopped doing it. It is up to you, really, even though I appreciate it, it takes reviewer's time, so just to let you know, I am okay if you don't do it -- we are always short on time for news. Thank you for the review, by the way.
•–• 22:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Leaving little customized notes on authors' user talk pages after a review is on our wish list of things for a semi-automated review assistant to help with. --Pi zero (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Gryllida was also saying something about this. BTW, @Green Giant: I know you don't use IRC frequently, but it would be really helpful to be online for a live communication, discussion with the author is quite helpful, for the reviewer when there is any confusion or need of clarification.
•–• 22:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I’m not criticising using it for reviewing but it’s just never attracted me as a useful tool. However, I’ll try to be on IRC next time I review. Green Giant (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Might be -- since I have found an IM to have a discussion about every edit with reviewer/author useful. Okay, I should focus on matching up to the speed of reviewer's review speed.
•–• 23:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

South African batsman de Villiers announces retirement from international cricket[edit]

In the third paragraph, was it all meant to be a single sentence? The first sentence as it stands is incomplete. Green Giant (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: "de Villiers' batting average is above 50 in test match as well as One Day International (ODI) formats of the game. de Villiers has featured in 228 ODI and 78 Twenty20 (T20) matches for South Africa. He has scored 9577 and 1672 runs in ODIs and T20s respectively."
•–• 00:38, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
The "is" was missing. Reviewed. Passed. Congratulations! Green Giant (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Assembly votes to merge with Pakistani Federally Administered Tribal Areas[edit]

Reviewed and passed. Congratulations! I put it in Lead 2, replacing the previous article on the issue, which I think is better than having two articles on a similar topic. Green Giant (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing it -- well, whenever we have a follow-up article, they should be replaced in the lede. I remember once beating a lot of MSMs for an article, and then I wrote a follow up article, and the former article did not even get a day on the main page lede section.
•–• 00:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
I note that there has been a further development today. The Pakistani President appears to have signed the bill into law. See pakistantoday.com.pk for example. I’m tempted to write a follow-up article if I have time today. Green Giant (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, please, feel free to -- go ahead. I am really offline for a whole day, and we should not lose the story. If in case, I start an article, DO NOT HESITATE to modify it, or change it significantly. Shall I try to create a basic structure?
•–• 09:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: is it okay if I start as draft right now?
•–• 09:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I have started writing -- I will take some time to put it on-wiki.
•–• 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, please feel free to start it. I got distracted yesterday by other in-wiki things. I’ll be happy to review it. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

UN releases first-ever human rights report on Kashmir[edit]

I know you’re aware of it but this is a courtesy note to say the article has passed review and been published. Congratulations. —Green Giant (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, User:DiplomatTesterMan should get equal credit. And I really wanted the article to be entirely their work -- they could have learned a lot, and as a newbie, they did an excellent job. But I could not do things on time. :-/
•–• 10:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Football: Arsenal sign Bayer Leverkusen goalkeeper Bernd Leno[edit]

This is as good as a ping. Published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Yeah, well, you went missing from IRC.
•–• 17:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I tried IRC Cloud and it just messed me around. At the same time my computer felt it was a good time to install more updates. I’m now on my mobile while it is rebooting. Green Giant (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: You will be working on the Colombia article, right?
•–• 18:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I will do. Green Giant (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Iván Duque wins Colombia's presidential election[edit]

I know you are aware but a courtesy note: reviewed and published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: do you think you can manage another review tonight? (I wonder if you had your dinner) If you can review this politics and conflicts article, I will share the sources before I transfer the content online.
•–• 20:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I’m about to go and eat now, so I should be free in about an hour. I’ll be happy to review another article. Green Giant (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
One hour -- noted. I am almost done extracting the sources, so I should be able to put it online by then.
•–• 21:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

India: Mehbooba Mufti resigns as Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister as Bharatiya Janata Party breaks alliance[edit]

Another courtesy note. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Obtw, we really should avoid renaming after the article is published. It creates duplicate entries in feeds. One extra word (though shoul have been avoided) is no big deal.
•–• 00:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Algeria blocks internet across nation to prevent cheating in diploma exams[edit]

Reviewed. Published. Congratulations! Green Giant (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Canada: Cannabis to be legal by October 17[edit]

Unfortunately, the Chicago Tribune is not available in Europe, so I’m unsble to complete a review. Green Giant (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Vienna Pride[edit]

Concerning your request for images, you can find them here: Commons:Category:Regenbogenparade 2018. Kind regards --Funke (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Funke: Wow! I am overwhelmed with the number of photos, that to some are really good shots. But FWIW, for a news article, we had a deadline -- so though it may be tricky, I would have to ask a reviewer for their opinions. But well, thank you for sharing the link!
•–• 12:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I just realized that the pictures have an ugly watermark in the bottom right corner unfortunately (I didn't make them, I only transferred them to Commons), I'm sorry. --Funke (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Funke: & Acagastya, that can be solved easily (though photo by photo, or just the photo's you need) by enabling Croptool on Commons (overhere). When you watch a photo, "Croptool" can be chosen in de menu at the right. Ymnes (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Reviewed and published[edit]

Reviewed. Published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Reviewed. Published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Reviewed and published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Reviewed and published. Only very minor issues. Green Giant (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Reviewed and published. Congratulations. Green Giant (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing those, Green Giant. And yes, these days I don't visit my talk page anymore due to FWC18.
•–• 21:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Reviewed and published. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Reviewed and published. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup 2018 Last 16: Russia, Croatia beat Spain, Denmark in penalties[edit]

I'd submitted an edit which, at this moment, is still pending review, btw. --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It ain't over till it's over[edit]

Back at you.

For writing that entire set of World Cup match reports and enabling those ton[ne]s of categories! --Pi zero (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Required a clear? Hmm. Well, thank you!
•–• 05:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Stories[edit]

You asked about possible articles. During my occasional article-writing periods, I remember having trouble choosing stories. I've just trawled the google news aggregator, and while I was moved to look into about five stories that I saw, most of them had flaws that caused me to shy away from them. The only one still on my list at the end was

Another I noted was about a Jewish Nation-State bill in Israel, which sounds like it would disenfranchise Israeli citizens who aren't Jewish and I think was to be considered by the Knesset on Wednesday, meaning none of the articles I saw would be up-to-date. There was also something about a "yes means yes" bill to be considered in Spain, but it wasn't clear to me whether there was any identifiable specific event that wasn't still in the future. --Pi zero (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving the note. FWIW, I was going to write about Jewish State bill (how can we both stumble across same articles? What kind of sorcery is this?) Well, it was supposed to happen on Wednesday, but none of the sources spoke whether the votes were counted or not.
•–• 05:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Al Jazeera said it is passed. So Australia, Israel, Turkey coming up.
•–• 05:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

ant-man and the wasp actor defends gunn[edit]

new article for you if u like to add any info on? Glassywings (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

It was late last night, I will tuck it in the same article -- I will be adding information about Dave Batista, so this comes with it.
•–• 07:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Mars[edit]

--Pi zero (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous[edit]

Fwiw. Focal event on Friday.

--Pi zero (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Focal event on (alas) Thursday.
--Pi zero (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Re England won and take lead in the 5 match test series versus India[edit]

Not sure what to make of this, the source is unreadable. Gryllida (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of content[edit]

It is my belief that you needed to add that revision to the article talk page, rather than discarding it. I am really hopeful that my comments are not removed in the future like this, without a notification. I do not always watch recent changes and this revision is a lot harder for people to find in the history than in the talk page; they were left a message on the talk page and then this message started to refer to nothing. Gryllida (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I restored the edit which I wanted to. Edit summary made it very clear. Your edit made it very difficult for anyone to make sense. A newbie would have found it extremely difficult. Plus, you left a note on this talk, which I assume, you were asking me to do something about it, so I am. Those concerns which you had raised should have been on talk. It is not meant to be outside the journalist's space to begin with. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I don't suppose there is anyone else active right now, who can get that article submitted. So I need to work on that.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
You didn't do anything. Acagastya did.
Anyone can take the draft to edit. That is not really concerning to me. I in fact welcome any improvements.
My concern is that misplaced comments can be moved (NOT removed).
I was holding a conversation with the original author, on their talk page, and I was linking them to the article revision where they could see my comments. Their removal has interfered with that conversation. And the burden of fixing that became on me. Now I need to link them to the article talk page and explain that my comments are now at a different location. Not really a pleasant experience!! (It would be really nice if I was not subject to such a misfortune the next time I deem something useful and put it into an article draft.)
Hope it helps you, 103.254.128.86. Have a great day. Gryllida (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Then I hope you link the difference instead of the page, and make sure that you leave "comments" out of the main space, and drop them on talk page instead.
•–• 11:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Day and place of publication[edit]

I'm concerned that the pure issue may have gotten muddled, in the article and its talk page, with a bunch of other issues that occur with it in that specific situation. So I'm hoping we can discuss this single issue, just a bit, without distractions.

Why do you think these two data should occur adjacent to each other in an article about publication of a scientific result? --Pi zero (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Bridge collapse in India[edit]

--Gryllida (chat) 21:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer an indef-opt-out from any sort of article requests or suggestions, Gryllida.
•–• 19:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Acagastya,
You asked for article suggestions at least three times previously, hence the suggestion. You are good at writing and you know the local sources well so I thought it could indeed be a nice idea that could inspire you to write about this topic. I'm terribly sorry that I am not aware of a change in your approach to this. What has changed? Why are article suggestions not welcome today? --Gryllida (chat) 23:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't suppose I got an answer to this one? Gryllida chat / how do YOU get started? 05:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't remove content, please.[edit]

1) I am not obligated to monitor article history to fight for the presence of the content which I added.

When taking the liberty to remove content, particularly when you know where it should go, please take the responsibility for adding it to the correct location yourself.

2) I think both locations are correct because in {{develop}} phase the article is a draft.

--Gryllida (chat) 04:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

How about you let me save the revision without an edit conflict? First of all, it should have been on the talk page. Secondly, when I went on to move the content to talk page, you already had.
•–• 04:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
1) Move it to the talk page prior to the removal? 2) If you make User:Gryllida/js/UnderReview.js work, I'll use such a button for adding {{editing}} when I click the 'edit' tab. I can't figure out how to prepend text to a page via the currently existing API query libraries. --Gryllida (chat) 04:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That should not be there on the article page, so even if I do not put it on talk page (which would be only morally wrong) you can't chastise me for that. Also, I would rather not surrender myself for the "technologies", for those activities which I can do manually without much effort. Reliant on bots and scripts should not be there for every single thing.
•–• 07:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I congratulate you on re-iterating that erasing my meaningful remarks is a productive use of time. I also congratulate you on denying this point: "Clicking 'edit', typing '{{under review}}', clicking 'save' then clicking 'edit' again is a lot of work that may be semi-automated which may improve the life of those who run into edit conflicts.". Personally I find both achievements counter productive to news production but it is your decision now what to do. --Gryllida (chat) 10:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
See, if you really want this place to end up as the arena to pull each others hair, well, I don't know what to say. However, I am in a awe: I wonder how you extrapolated from what I wrote to the "meaningful" remarks as whatever the rhetorical fuck you wanted. Seriously, talk page exists for remarks, so use it. Stop chastising me for that. Also, in that last year, I have reviewed more articles than you have, and I was more active than you have been; I never ran into edit conflicts, because I know how to clear the cache and check before making any edits--and this is when there were at least four reviewers: me, Pi zero, SVTCobra and Green Giant. I am not stopping you from using any of the scripts that you want to use. Just that I don't feel the real need to use it. It takes a simple Ctrl+Shift+R, Alt+Shift+E, under review template, and Alt+Shift+S. It may seem a lot of work, as compared to a simple click, but I would rather not slow down page loading for my account on my internet connection for doing something that hardly takes two seconds. You call semi-automation as making things easier; I take it as making humans lazy.
•–• 12:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I recommend everyone lower the tone of discussion. --Pi zero (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

civilty in reviewer role[edit]

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkfrog24&curid=964769&diff=4443024&oldid=4443023

ESPECIALLY as a reviewer you are required to NOT BELITTLE the authors even if they are not learning (and especially so)

--Gryllida (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

(their response is incivil also, this is discussed at their alk page
but what you say needs to be unconditionally incivil and 'they are not doing it right' is not a working excuse Gryllida (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
"Darkfrog24 not noticing RC. That sounds similar." is not what you say to encourage learning process... Special:PermaLink/4443189 Gryllida (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Let's discuss that in real time.
•–• 06:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Review privs[edit]

You've twice self-sighted edits too extensive to appropriately self-sight. And put much more effort into repeatedly doing what doesn't work than it have taken to do something that did work. You are usually a great asset to the project, but you seem out of sorts atm. I'm especially alarmed by the inappropriate self-sighting; we need to be able to trust you not to misuse the priv. --Pi zero (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

let me avoid all the cussing I could. Use your eyes, and compare the difference. Tell me if adding spaces in between the source template for human readability is "too extensive".
27.59.92.170 (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I expect you answering about it when you wake up.
27.59.23.226 (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
This isn't something that can be done reliably by eye. The only way I can see to be sure of what is being done would be to undo, or restruct, your edit one character at a time (this could be done in preview, without saving, but that's little consolution), which would take far more effort by a reviewer than your edit took in the first place. --Pi zero (talk) 07:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't give me that bullshit. I know that this was the edit I can self-sight. So, now that you have sorted it out the hard way, within 24-hour mark, use your eyes or semi-automate it, I don't care: when you have to audacity to say shit, you sure can find time to check for yourself, as a perfectionist. Let's see who was right and who was not.
•–• 11:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who claims it was too extensive to self-sight. It is on you to prove it. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
•–• 11:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I realize de-escalation is called for; a few small residual points, fwiw.
  • Separate from current acrimony: Human eyes are a potent tool when used to advantage; for best effect, though, one wants a synergy of human and automated elements.
  • An avoidance-worthy hazard is moving goalposts. You started out treating the change as something not to self-sight, and later treated it as self-sight-able after two reviewers found your edit impractical to untangle and therefore wouldn't sight it.
  • It seems Gryllida too was previously unaware of how obfuscating the platform's diff algorithm could be. Although this isn't a new drawback of the wiki platform, perhaps my efforts to work around it have made it less likely for others to notice.
--Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't give me that shit. The reason I did not self sight initially was due to the fact that I fixed a typo, and I did not know if that was the intended usage as I did not read the article completely, and did not want to assume. I was very well aware of what else I was sighting for the next two times. I don't give two fucks about what you think human eyes can or can not do or what MediaWiki can or can not do. About your two reviewer bullshit, you both love technology so much, that you can't use your own fucking eyes even though I told you nicely what changes I had done.
You come to my talk page and talk about "trust" while you choose to not trust me as someone who knows when I can sight an edit, the irreversible cracks have already appeared. The only thing you can do is to a) compare the revisions and reach to a conclusion about was it too extensive, and then declare who was right b) not compare the revisions and leave baseless accusations just like that. Your call. What would you do now, @Pi zero:?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've pointed out, by now, many of the basic points of this. It really does look as if you're letting your mood interfere with your assessment of the situation. I recommend letting yourself step down from that state. --Pi zero (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't give me that BS, pi. Just write here (after you have compared the differences, of course) what was the difference, and if it is too extensive. Cut the crap, prove your point. Leave your opinions as they would not help proving your point. You can not escape answering this forever, @Pi zero:. Take all the fucking time you need, but the delay would only reflect on you not having any proof to support your baseless claim. (I wonder if you checked the difference of the first edit when I mentioned typo and changed the stance for "An avoidance-worthy hazard is moving goalposts"). Tell you what, when you question trustworthiness, and without solid grounds, you have done all the damage. Only thing remaining is can you still stick to ethics and morals and reach to an unbiased conclusion.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't tell what you're asking for. Gryllida and I both found the diffs on that edit to be of no help in a visual determination of what was going on; so perhaps you're asking for "proof" of something else. --Pi zero (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
proof that it was indeed extensive. Use any means. Compare individual characters in the entire source code and reach the conclusion. Do not stall by going in circles. You pulled this off in the morning. You still have not stopped.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I never started. If you think I'd use tactics like that, you don't know me at all (which suggests that you do know I wouldn't, and leaves me not sure why you'd say that).

I can see where each of us committed small misunderstandings and slight misjudgements that kept making things worse and worse, but most of that, it seems unlikely we could sort out carefully. One point were we've been especially talking past each other, though, is that, in disucssing whether or not the edit was suitable to self-sight, you appear to be asking whether the edit was substantive, whereas I'm looking at whether it was reviewable. (One could ask whether reviewability should be a factor in whether or not one self-sights, and I'd have to say it depends on the context of the situation; this situation was very messy, and I don't even know whether I agree with my own spot-judgement on that from my earlier comments.) On the facts of the situation, I never claimed it was substantive. Re reviewability: A reviewer looking at the diff for that edit — and, intentionally or not, you did ask that some other reviewer assess the edit — would naturally think, this diff is a garbled mess, I can't tell anything from this diff. The reason diffs are provided in the first place is that examining edits byte-by-byte is not something human beings are good at doing reliably unless aided by some sort of visualization tool. For my part (can't speak for Gryllida), I also recognized it as a case where the diff software was confused. I've dealt with reviewing edits like that many times, and know how much of a tedious mess it is, whereas it can all be vastly easier if the person making the edit splits it up into multiple edits, which I also know from experience is easy for them to do. I tried to ask you to do that; somehow or other, the request went wrong. --Pi zero (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Just because you feel uncomfortable because of the current gadgets and tools and can't objectively decide, but in this case, I can; it does not mean that you should restrict me for the same thing. I am not overly reliant like others, and if you think otherwise, it is your problem. You have been continuously changing your stance, quite unusual.
106.193.47.142 (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
You may notice Pi zero wanted to satisfy your needs: he wanted the edit to occur in the future (as a series of small edits). Pi zero's need was to obtain a readable diff; there was no effort on your part to satisfy that. Would you agree? Gryllida (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't give me that shit, Gry. What happened to your: "We value every contributor, and whatever they do, we should appreciate that" thing of yours? Why are you comparing efforts here? In any case, I can turn the condition and ask, pizero and you, both, had no effort to check the difference. I can also say, Gry, I put effort to review, write and fix articles regardless of what time it is. You don't seem to be putting efforts. So what was your point comparing anyone's effort?
106.193.47.142 (talk) 07:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Comparing the diff manually leaves the history unreadable to others. We have a duty to expect that others can use the website without installing git. Gryllida (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
again changing your stance. I told you as in Gryllida to use git because you are the one who wants automation for anything that you can think of. Others have eyes, and they can read the summaries and not everyone complains about the difference viewer.
223.237.226.92 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Request to use images in a Wikipedia article[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if you could put one or two images from the Bangalore Comic Con into the Wikipedia article for Comic Con India. OR, can you just confirm if images you have uploaded onto Wikinews can be used on Wikipedia. Thanks. Wonderful writeup and images are awesome! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Usage restriction of "only on Wikinews" was added while requestion media accreditation, which means the photos are "not free", but can be used as Fair Use (except photos of living people) on enwp. You may carry on to export any photo to enwp, if you can write a FU rationale. I would not know what exactly you were looking for. But I can help with FUR.
•–• 19:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)