User talk:acagastya/Archive/δ

acagastya/talk/Archive | α β γ δ ε

---

Just do not edit the contents of this page as it is an archive. You can leave me a message on the current talk page or go to the previous archive.

UEFA Euro 16 draw takes place: England and Wales drew in Group B

Pi zero (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The non-textual content treated as if it were part of the text isn't really appropriate. It should be text.

acagastya 17:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Well, should I use tables? (I tried to have it like Draw results for UEFA Euro 2008 announced)

Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me it should be text.
One of the difficulties in working out how to handle these sorts of articles is that the examples in the archives, such as the one you mention, are from before review.

UEFA Champions League 2015-2016: Draw for Last 16 held at Nyon

I do feel we can get the kinks worked out of this process so things will run more smoothly. We're not quite there yet, though.

(I'm skeptical of your template-based approach; my suspicion is that it addresses an organization part of article writing/reviewing that may be a lesser consideration, not the main bottleneck; but I admit I don't fully understand what you have in mind, so at this point I'm only speculating and striving as always to keep an open mind.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Benítez out as Real Madrid appoints Zidane their new manager

Sorry this didn't work out quickly, as I know you were hoping it would. --Pi zero (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Borussia Dortmund captain Mats Hummels to join rivals Bayern Munich

Pi zero (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I was surprised to find there was a lot of stuff in the article I couldn't find in the sources. As you point out, you've been here for a year; you should know by now to document everything, thoroughly, and to try to make everything really easy to review. See the review comments.

Pi zero (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The good news (though I know you were really hoping we could pubalish this last night) is that I think I got the whole "has he actually signed" question under control.

acagastya 12:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
fcbayern and fcb.tv confused me. Forgot to add one.

Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I'd wondered if it might be simply a source dropped from the list.

acagastya 14:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Still to be on the safer side, I added ESPN FC link to avoid any further doubts. Well, on IRC, I messaged the links for Lewandowski and Götze. Wasn't that okay?

Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, is that what those links were? I recalled you'd mentioned something but has misremembered what it was about and, since that tab was closed, would have had to hunt around to find the info. The thing is, this stuff really ought to be documented on-wiki if possible, or in some special cases on scoop with notes on-wiki saying it's been sent to scoop. It can be quite useful to have real-time communication between reviewer and writer on IRC, but actual documentation should be centered on the wiki (including things like OR notes). Had I remembered correctly about those links, I'd have hunted them up and put them on the article for you, as a favor. Though, if I'd fully understood in the first place, I'd have asked you to put them on the article at the time.

Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's published. Tangled review process, to which I'm sure I contributed my share of tangling; a worthwhile article, though.

Sevilla wins third consecutive Europa League title, beating Liverpool 3-1

Handraulic (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to say thanks for the help with the article. Nice job! That was some good collaboration.

acagastya 21:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Handraulic:Your welcome! Well basically, I tried to fix the style and I felt that Klopp's views should be added. In his contract, Klopp would get GBP 7 million if Liverpool qualifies for UEFA Champions League or wins the league. You can read about it here "Jürgen Klopp signs 3 year contract with Liverpool" — Wikinews, Saturday, October 10, 2015. Well, what about Copa del Rey, FA Cup, DfB Pokal and Coppa Italia? Any plans?

Handraulic (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. Wow! I didn't know about that in his contract. Klopp must be unhappy he missed out on that kind of money. Well, I might be away for a couple of days or weeks, I've got a couple of exams coming up and I'm also moving to a new house, so it's going to be a little hectic. I'll check in when I have a chance and see how the articles read and maybe make a edit here and there.

acagastya 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
@Handraulic:Being a Barcelona and Spanish supporter, I wanted Sevilla to win. I feel good for Sevilla. My exams finished today (As per UTC) and if you have a busy schedule, I will take care of those articles. I hope Brian Mc won't have a problem with having four sports news submitted in a day.

Pi zero (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Four sports articles submitted in one day is kind of inconsiderate of reviewers.

acagastya 04:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Pi zero:Review one each day. Well, DfB Pokal is Der Klassiker (German Classic), Coppa Italia is battle of two of the best in Italy (Juventus being the most successful in Italy, AC Milan being second most successful in Italy as well as Europe), FA Cup has many followers and Copa del Rey features Europa League winners as well as La Liga winners.

¡La Undécima!: Real Madrid wins 2015-16 UEFA Champions League 5-3 on penalties

Pi zero (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Was that broadcast reporting? If not, we should fix the template ASAP. See my review comments.

acagastya 04:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Yes it is. I was making notes while watching the match. But I was unaware of the template {{broadcast report}}. Sorry for the late reply.

OR preparation

It would be nice to move the questions to a non-talk page, so that the questions page has a talk page where they may be discussed without incorporating these questions into the interview. --Gryllida (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved to User:Acagastya/sandbox as suggested off-wiki. --Gryllida (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, hmmmm

It seems like the first thing was something I wrote (some time ago) and the 2nd thing sounds great!! But:I don't think I wrote that! --Bddpaux (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Hi! The Canada infobox was so low in the article because I had intended to move some photos up, to be larger. I was hoping to minimize the presence of the box in part because it shows how infrequently there's new Canadian content on Wikinews. I'm fine with whatever formatting, but that was the intent. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zanimum: you can control the size of images. "left|thumb|500px" would set width of the image as 500px. We don't have recent articles about Canada, but if we are going to have an infobox, it would be at the top. Do we have a category for comicon or fan expo? We could use that, or perhaps culture and entertainment.
27.59.67.146 (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

On average, the culture ones are more recent, so it would be better to use that, probably. Are infoboxes optional? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Very old archives do not have infoboxes. But all of the recent ones have. I collaborated for an article (dated August 14) and we did not use infobox. Mozilla, Creative Commons, Wikimedia Foundation announce Bassel Khartabil Free Culture fellowship following execution of open culture activist.
103.254.128.118 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pi zero (Wikinewsie)

Creating a user category for someone without getting their permission first seems... weirdly creepy, sort of like cyber-stalking with a twist.

As a somewhat separate issue, you may have realized by now it should have been given a different name, since a normal Wikinewsie category Category:Pi zero (Wikinewsie) would be for articles written by me (there are, btw, a few of those; just not many).

Please don't create (let alone populate) any categories in my name without my permission. (I probably wouldn't agree to it without first taking some time to think it through first, which I clearly haven't got spare time for this morning. --Pi zero (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We got to start from somewhere -- remember we talked about having a CAT for me weeks ago, and we did not have it yet. We will keep on adding things in out to-do list if we don't act now, so shall we?
acagastya PING ME! 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Several points.

• A word of warning, up front. I'm feeling grouchy about this. I really wanted to apply my first-thing-in-the-morning momentum today to review, and instead I've lost it to this. I'll get less review done today because of that missed opportunity, even though I'm not willing to spend the whole morning on this in order to put it to bed. Yes, I realize something else might have killed my momentum if this hadn't; but nothing else got the chance to do so because this got to it first — so I am, in fact, grouchy about this instead of grouchy about something else.
• Like I said, don't create these categories in my name, at this time, without my permission. I have not given such permission.
• A Wikinewsie category for articles written by acagastya is a separate issue, and as far as I remember the key thing it was waiting on was you providing to me a list of the articles to go into it. Naturally, having no great surplus of time, I wasn't agitating to get the list to me faster; but it's my recollection that list was the next step.
• I have repeatedly said (though perhaps not very forcefully) I disagreed with your claim that there was any need to act quickly on the reviewer-category thing. Indeed, now that I'm spending a bunch of (unintended) time on it this morning, I can see that the sort of manually populated reviewer categories you're setting up are the wrong way to do it — "doing it the hard way". If you manually set up those things now it'll probably just mean a lot of manual work later to undo what you're doing now.

--Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Since I've got an odd block of time here in the late morning, not big enough for a review, I'm thinking maybe I'll try my hand at the who-reviewed-it category problem after all. --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've wired it up. Category:Peer reviewed/Passed/Pi zero, Category:Peer reviewed/Not ready/Pi zero. (It should take a while for the software to catch up with populating those.) At least, it seems like a start on the problem. If we really feel the need for something that categorizes the articles themselves, we might consider piggy-backing it off of {{haveyoursay}}.

(Sorry I was so grouchy this morning. Hopefully I'll be in better form this afternoon.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Temporary edits

What are these temporary removals of infoboxen for? --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: the first photo available in the article is chosen by Telegram, and also other websites like Facebook when we share the link. Since infobox is mentioned above any article, it's image appears. That's why. I do it for Wikinews channel on Telegram.
acagastya PING ME! 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|As the admin who blocked me says: I was disrupting Wikinews to prove a point, let me tell you, I didn't edit anything on the main space. I just reverted vandalism on my user page. There is no policy on what we can not have on our user page, and "Wikinews is not responsible for the content of external sites." So, that is not incorrect. And as WN:Point says: discuss on the talk page first, I wanted to start the discussion about what is permitted on the user page. But despite following the policy, I am blocked!}}

to point out, before blocking for "disruptive editing", one is supposed to leave a talk page message. One is also supposed to put a blocked template, and explain the reason properly. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, the admin who blocked acagastya did not establish how the edits were disruptive.
27.59.19.27 (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I've given you a 24 hour cool-down period. Common sense applies; you clearly knew what you were doing was wrong before you did it, that being the point of the action. Hence the cool-down period. --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Explain how it is disruptive. Is there a policy which I broke by editing my user page? Is there a policy which prevents me from adding links to my user page? Did you explain properly? Point out which edit is "disruptive"?
103.254.128.50 (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I accepted the fact that those links were malware. I did not accept that what I did was wrong. And I don't know what is wrong. So, explain, what is wrong.
acagastya PING ME! 05:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ultimately the purpose of blocks is preventative; the end goal is to prevent damage to the project. Links to malware, deliberately made to look as if they were not, and you pretend to not know that that is wrong? I find that hard to credit. --Pi zero (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Making it look something else? So that is "disruptive editing"? It was to submit for phishing database. I have used my user page to save book marks before, you never blocked me for that.
acagastya PING ME! 06:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the end, which policy says I can not have external links on my user page? Either link that policy, or make the policy.
acagastya PING ME! 06:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Need for ArbCom

There are multiple things we need ArbCom:

1. framing better policies about user page content.
2. framing policies about external link, malware and use of source template.
3. Improper block rationale for acagastya and Agastya.
4. Image attribution
   acagastya PING ME! 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Red tape is one of the disastrous mistakes made by en.wp. If you can't see that those links were a wrong thing to do, then you are a danger to the project; if you can see that they were wrong and did it anyway, then again you are a danger to the project; either way, the block is entirely justified. My only doubt is whether a mere 24-hour block was inadequate; I'm hoping a cool-down period will let you get your bearings. --Pi zero (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have mentioned those links were to submit for the database -- the reason why it was still on the project is because there is no policy against content of external link. Am I dangerous to the project -- immaterial. Because if not me, someone else will raise the concern that there is no policy about external links/malware on the userpage, and Wikinews states that it is not responsible for it.
Axagastya (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you really cared for this project -- you would have framed/or planned to frame a policy for it by now. So don't tell me I am dangerous for this project.
Axagastya (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You almost provoked me into citing the policy, but then you added the line about if-I-really-cared. You know better; so, you're trolling. --Pi zero (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The cool down period? You know what will happen after the end of the block? I would request ArbCom to hear the case -- frame rules against personal information/and external links on the user page, and how to check if something is malware or not, and the proper attribution for photos, and why external links are banned when Wikinews is not responsible for its content. You "care" for the project by doing nothing (yes, blocking is not an effective way for sustaining) and I am "dangerous" for the project by raising concerns where there are loopholes. I know you it would not bother you if I am on this project or not, so for me. You say the block is justified, yet you fail to establish which policy I broke which called for WN:POINT. This is just like accusing a pineapple pizza lover because he can be "dangerous" for the country, provided country has no rules against pineapple pizza.
Axagastya (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sometimes guilty of optimism; perhaps, when I suggested you knew me better than that, it was one of those times. Perhaps you don't know me after all. --Pi zero (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ping @Pi zero:

Tell me, didn't 14.139.242.195 did block evading? Why didn't you block that IP two years ago? Don't say this is trolling, you can not use that excuse to shield from the things you did not do per the policies of Wikinews.
acagastya PING ME! 05:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with whether or nor you're serious. Blocking an IP for evading a voluntary block? --Pi zero (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

yes. Block evading is a block. The sole reason I requested that block: to focus on my studies and not spent time on Wikinews. I knew I could not control it, and requested a block. You know that very well.
acagastya PING ME! 06:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

You asked to have the account blocked, and you stated up front it was so you'd focus on your studies. I had doubts about it, especially doubts about the effectiveness of the measure, but, it was your account, so I honored your request to block it. Of course if you'd asked me at any time during that block (from the account) to lift the block I obviously would have done so immediately. I'd have no grounds for not lifting it. It would not usually be appropriate to block an IP, with potential for collateral damage, for a voluntary request. Though I don't recall you making any concerted effort to convince me to do so (granted, I do recall a conversation about this at some point during the period in question). --Pi zero (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't? I told you on IRC, while the time of the OR about earthquake in Afghanistan that I wanted to study, and I am still editing Wikinews, using this IP and it is doing no good for the block.
Axagastya (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Following yesterday's events, I really think there should be an ArbCom hearing about the many things we do not agree upon.

Things to discuss:

1. How much personal information is permissible on the user page?
2. How should be attribute the photos?
3. Improper rationale for my block.

Background

I use my userpage as sandbox, and I save links which I might use later, on the userpage. I have done it many times, and it was never questioned. One day, after I had redesigned my userpage, and was working on main page redesign, I wanted to save some phishing links so that I can add it to phishtank.com, since I could not remember my login credential. The display text mentioned which kind of page those URLs replicated. I didn't get time to submit then, and it remained on my userpage since then. I had never saved a suspicious URL before -- but after a discussion on Darkfrog24's talk, Pi zero mentioned sources in the External link section need not have sources template. Meaning, the readers who clicked the URL did not know where they might land, and it could be a spam link too. I checked the policies and it did not say anything about links on userpage. Moreover, the last line of the page says "Wikinews is not responsible for the content of external sites." Since I had not submitted those links yet, it remained on my userpage. I had mentioned important links so that I handle it with care. When it was removed by Pi zero yesterday -- that was sort of vandalism to prevent vandalism -- I agree. But since I did not violate any policy, or did something that could trigger WN:POINT, I find the block rationale invalid. I agree those were phishing websites which I saved because I wanted to report to phishing database.

Things to discuss

Considering this, and the various telephone spams we receive almost each day, we must have a limit on what we can have on the user page. For example, links to third-party website, social media services, contact information like email, phone number, address, personal websites, blogs... Also, what if someone's personal website is a phishing website? Or how do we set rules for a malicious website? Or how how to be prevent user page from being used as a promotion/advertising place for sharing links to blogs/ YouTube video, Amazon.com wishlist... How do we draw the fine line for which URLs are allowed and which are not? (also see User:C.H.I news)

There has been a debate on attribution/image courtesy between me and Pi zero (as well as Blood Red Sandman). Creative Commons' website says the best practice (and as mentioned in a CC license), attribution is must, which explicitly mentions Name of the author, link to the license, link to the original file (and also original title). They abbreviate it as TASL. (link). But, on English Wikinews, the attribution mentions the author name only, which, per the CC license, is incorrect. So, how should we attribute?

Lastly, was my block's rationale valid? Is there a policy about malicious links? If yes, the footer says we are not responsible for the content of the external link, so how do we address that?

Ping

ArbCom: @Pi zero, RockerballAustralia, Brian, ShakataGaNai, William S. Saturn, Mikemoral:

Non-ArbCom members (for framing the policies) @Gryllida, Bddpaux, Blood Red Sandman, Tom Morris, Brian McNeil:
acagastya PING ME! 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Creative Commons licensing, the licenses themselves and the linked page both say to be reasonable. Quoting from the linked page/one of the licenses,

"You may satisfy the conditions... in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means and context in which the Licensed Material is used. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy some or all of the conditions by retaining a copyright notice, or by providing a URI or hyperlink associated with the Licensed Material, if the copyright notice or webpage includes some or all of the required information."

It would seem that the fact we link already to the image information page upon clicking that would satisfy CC's requirements. The courtesy credit is all that, a courtesy. We provide the required attribution either via the file page from Commons or on WN when it's a local file. It could entirely be the case that specific CC licenses require other forms of attribution as suggested on another page from CC. The general requirement is that "attribution may be reasonable to the medium or means" (with exceptions of some sort for versions before 4.0). —mikemoral (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

that reasonable attribution should mention links explicitly. The information should not be made available after a few clicks. I had even emailed CC about it. They asked to follow the best practices. If you see the example, they have also mentioned the poor examples. If the attribution can not be given next to the media, it should be somewhere in the page, but should be mentioned explicitly.
acagastya PING ME! 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Clicking the image or file will either open the link to the File: page or open the media viewer both of which present copyright information. That would be us providing the link, so I wouldn't think it would be necessary to provide information on the articles themselves if it's easily accessible by following the image link. —mikemoral (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the link to the license and the photo has to be mentioned explicitly. Besides, the template {{image}} has a link to the license (actually the File: page) with text display "Reuse terms". For example:

Image: Mdd4696. (Reuse terms.)

Here, the original source of the image is Commons, but for photos imported from Flickr, we are supposed to link to the Flickr page. (See this and this).
acagastya PING ME! 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Team player cats

How would you envision this sort of thing being used, in a DPL? I'm not really sure whether or not there's a way to satisfy both of us (or, partly satisfy both of us), until I understand what it is you're hoping for. --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

First Star Trek series in twelve years debuts on television

Can you take a look at this for me, please? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Yes, sure. By the way, I have notices you use [[:w:Lorem|Ipsum]] to link to Wikipedia. Please consider using {{w}} template instead.
acagastya PING ME! 13:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you think it can be published? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: I can source check the facts, and copyedit. But I have no idea about Star Trek and I don’t want to make a royal mess as a newbie reviewer. I am leaving it for pizero, but at the moment, there are four articles they need to review. It is going to be tough. I would try my best.
acagastya PING ME! 04:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Really, not knowing about the show helps because it should be written for a general audience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

but that is the place where we could miss out crucial facts.
acagastya PING ME! 04:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Working it out

It seems to me that part of the problem with my edit on this article might be that you just don't like it when people correct your English or change your text. I didn't know that you wrote the article. I don't click the page history and check who the principal author is because it shouldn't matter. On Wikipedia, it's expected that any text submitted by anyone can be edited by anyone else, but things are a little different here.

Do you wish to say, for any reason, "Darkfrog24, please don't remove any mistakes or alter any not-exactly-wrong-but-could-be-better text in my articles. I'd rather let it stand/let someone else change it/come back and do it myself/other"? Wikinews is big enough that I can volunteer my time elsewhere, but checking who wrote the article before proofreading it is a pain in the neck and I don't want to waste my energy doing it if it won't make a difference. But I could do it as a favor.

So I'm asking you whether it makes a difference. Is this what's going on or part of what's going on?

Sometimes people feel that the other person has to be doing something objectively wrong for them to say "stop," but they don't. People can say "this bothers me" or "I don't like it." People's feelings matter, especially on such a small team. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Article about Pakistan's prime minister indicating policy change towards USA

Greetings. Recently, Pakistani prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said in his statement that Pakistan won't need US aid in the future, clearly indicating the policy swift by Pakistan after Trump's policy statement regarding South Asia. Would it be relevant to write article on this matter?--Asadwarraich (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Asadwarraich: It is an interesting story. And I didn't know until you informed me. Thank you. So, would you want to try writing the article, or do you want me to write about it?
acagastya PING ME! 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be better if your write.--Asadwarraich (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Asadwarraich: I can try, but I would really want you to write the article. Don't worry if it is not good, or short, just write it. Trust me, this is how you will get to learn.
acagastya PING ME! 17:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Link to the article. It would be better if you complete the article.--Asadwarraich (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Asadwarraich: I understand it is getting late night (for us both). It is okay if you leave it for me, but if you can try, please do it. (You want to see the size of my first article, it was very small: F.C. Barcelona wins La Liga 2014-2015) It sure is difficult, but you need to try.
acagastya PING ME! 18:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Weirdness.

So I tried to post a picture of myself taken by by sister. Denied. How you justify this type of weirdness? Im sorry but I dont have time to cope with Wiki news or what ever this is.

Benish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codeforepub (talk • contribs)

Your sister holds the copyright of the photo, not you. So she has to grant you the permission, and there should be a written proof (don't try to write yourself, and forge her signature, this is not how it works) that she has granted the rights to release the photo in <whichever license you want to choose>. Even if she would not sue you, or Wikimedia.
acagastya PING ME! 15:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Taliban

It seems I may have made a mistake with this. I'm not exactly sure how these cats should be arranged. Our Category:Taliban describes itself as being about the Afghan Taliban; so I started to create a category for the Pakistani Taliban. It's hard to tell sometimes whether Taliban news in Pakistan is really TTF or Afghan Taliban. I was thinking of having a cat for "Pakistani Taliban" and a cat for "Afghan Taliban" (those are easily understood names in English, clearly labeled by country), and... perhaps a "Taliban" category containing both? But it's proving very difficult to tell which Taliban (Pakistani/Afghan) is being discussed in a given article; in part I think the Wikinews authors weren't careful about the distinction, in part the sources may have downplayed the distinction (it's hard to know with an article from, say, 2007 whose sources are all unavailable). I'm also not completely confident that one can always tell the difference between the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban.

Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I am in the college right now. We will discuss this later tonight (or for you, tomorrow morning). I think I have an idea to fix the issue, but it would me tedious.
acagastya PING ME! 02:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Abandoned articles

They can be checked for copyvio in userspace, which I'm trying work on give the pages a check. Regarding trackability, I generally leave a note on the user's talk page when I move an article to the userspace, generating a list of articles there. I had moved them to the userspace as they have been abandoned for nearly a month already. —mikemoral (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mikemoral: don't you think it wouldn't have been difficult for Pi zero to do that? Since there are so many things going on, it is possible that we might miss out some of the user spaced articles. Please check for copyvio before doing anything else.
acagastya PING ME! 10:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

They can be checked for copyvio in userspace. These articles have been abandoned for quite a while and at least userfying them brings them into attention so we can handle what needs be done. —mikemoral (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mikemoral:We are aware of it. But there are other things with higher priority, so it is possible someone will get to it later than sooner. And once the article is in userspace -- it might be hard to keep track of it, let's say forgetting we had to check for X, or was it Y's subpage? Well, I think if we procrastinate, we would never be able to get to it.
acagastya PING ME! 10:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think tracking is an issue in this case. We have procrastinated on this which is why I'm working on clearing the backlog. —mikemoral (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Tell me, how will you track them? If you note it down somewhere, it is possible you would forget about it some day. That is what happened with my category page. I didn't do it for so long, but now I am. Because if we wait, it is never going to happen.
acagastya PING ME! 19:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I did, "Regarding trackability, I generally leave a note on the user's talk page when I move an article to the userspace, generating a list of articles there." I'm working on this as time permits and I don't think I'll let something slip through the cracks here. —mikemoral (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
and how will you remember which userpage to check after some days, if you haven't done it till then, and you have edited other pages? This is the thing I am trying to figure out. Something like a virtual assistant. Just more practical than Siri.
acagastya PING ME! 19:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No virtual assistant is needed, I can go off my own user contributions if needed. —mikemoral (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe because your contribution page is not as diverse as mine. But I cannot keep track of those things just my going through my contributions since there are so many different things to do.
acagastya PING ME! 05:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

If you want to talk

Acagastya, it feels like it's possible, possible that one of the reasons you got your rant on with me yesterday is because you're having a bad day or a bad year or that someone outside of Wikinews is treating you like shit and you felt like swinging your authority at something. That's not cool. I am not okay with being an emotional punching bag. On a purely practical level, if a constructive comment is buried inside a rant, then I can't use it without tacitly consenting to being ranted at, and I absolutely do not consent to it.

I am okay with being an ear. We've worked together long enough for me to trust you with that. If you want to talk about it, my "email this user" is there for you. You can talk about anything you want that isn't Wikinews and I'll listen. We're a community.

I am not offended if you delete this comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Unlike you, I can deal with this.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 02:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, @Darkfrog24: if you cannot handle criticism — how your article fails in certain journalistic aspects, and don’t want to be reminded that you have shown no signs of improvement, just tell that you don’t want that. I would stop expecting anything from you. But just to let you know, I would try my best to protect Wikinews from opinions, bias, and out of context material.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 02:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism must be constructive and civil, and you have shown poor judgement and rudeness. You make things personal when they don't have to be. Look where you said "Unlike you, I can deal with this." That's very rude. I'm just trying to be nice to you. (It also bothers me that you become hostile in the face of constructive criticism yourself, no matter how politely delivered it is, but that's another matter.) Take a couple weeks or months to think about what I said and then come back with a better way of presenting your views. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just like how you think using “uncensored” was okay, I think saying “unlike you” after seeing this, was totally okay. I thought I would not do a tit for tat, but how about you take some time to realise what are the things you are doing incorrectly?
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 03:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Agastya, Darkfrog24: You two are clearly getting on each other's nerves. I really suggest you both just drop this thread of discussion. In my experience, when people in an internet discussion start psychoanalyzing each other, it doesn't end well. --Pi zero (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

SD

Figured you had a point about the speedy queue. Cleared it. --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Earthquake

I think it would be a good thing to write about the earthquake on the border of Iran and Iraq.[1] There are yet more than 400 deaths and 6000 injured. There are many photographs on Commons available too. I hope you (or someone else here) will take the initiative to write about it in English. Ymnes (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymnes: I actually wanted to write about it. But you know, real life. I will do it in the morning, if I get time. But if you want to start the article, feel free to do so -- we will take turns to add information. (Or if Dutch Wikinews has written about it, you could just translate it here) By the way, There was an earthquake in Costa Rica and Japan, too. Any coverage for it?
•–• 18:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I translated the Dutch version: Earthquake on Irani-Iraqi border cost the lives of many hundreds of people.

Please feel free to alter whatever you feel is necessary. We have a different set of rules on Dutch Wikinews, so I don't care if it will change a lot. One source is yet in English (Guardian) and has much more information than the NOS one in Dutch. So probably a great deal of the information can be read in the article of the Guardian. Good luck and thanks! Take care in real life too! :-) Ymnes (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymnes: Yes, I saw. I will get to it in the morning. Thank you for translating it.
•–• 18:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome :-) Ymnes (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymnes: Um, if you have some time to spare, could you please make use of {{picture select}} for the images? It looks like complicated template. It is used here NASA's New Horizons space probe performs first close planetary flyby of Pluto. Only if you have some time to spare. Other wise I would get to it in the morning.
•–• 18:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Done I had never seen the template before, but I think it's all right this way. Ymnes (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cosplay questions

It's my impression that cosplay can, at its high end, be quite technically involved. It could make sense to ask questions on that side of things. --Pi zero (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Spam

Hi, I think a lot of spam pages are being uploaded here. De Wikischim (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: Do you mean the user pages?
•–• 09:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and some newly created pages in the main space. De Wikischim (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: Yes, I am aware of it. But I do not have admin rights. We need to wait for a few hours.
•–• 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, I thought you were a sysop here. De Wikischim (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WTF?

You decided you didn't want your big OR article published? --Pi zero (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's an unfair way of putting it. You marked this article as stale, which baffles me; it's nowhere near stale, since it's high-end OR. What's on your mind? --Pi zero (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: ORs are news articles, after all. And this is five days old. Nothing in the article is “news” or “new”. How can I let something be in the review queue when it is this old? Given that ORs are fresh for a longer period. But how long?If it was someone else’s article, I would not have marked it stale. But when I try to push and get things done by 48-hours from happening (and consider 96 hours for OR), I should not be encouraging this. I don’t know if I can make this call, but it just does not feel news. Could be because I experienced every moment of it, and that could influence such mentality, but don’t you think 119 hours is a lot? I thought about keeping the interview, but honestly, I know I blew it. As the second pair of eyeballs do you think we should have it?
223.237.198.157 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

With those interviews, I would expect the article to remain fresh for about a week before I'd start having doubts about freshness, though obviously we don't want to make it wait that long. I've been proceeding with the review queue on the expectation that I could afford to take things in the order submitted because that article was not about to abruptly run out of time. --Pi zero (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

India discontinues ₹500, ₹1000 denominations; releases ₹2000 and new ₹500 bills had very little OR material as compared to ComicCon, and was published five days after the event. I was not comfortable calling it fresh then, nor am I now. Could be because I saw the whole thing happen, but well, it is up to you if you want to allow it.
•–• 06:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The demonetization article had as I recall only a dash of OR, and yes, at five days it would have been rather marginal; four days would have been more comfortable, not that even sooner wouldn't have been better. There's more here, and yes sooner is better but interviews are generally given much greater leeway (except in rare cases where an interview is about something highly topical). --Pi zero (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, the interviews were possible only because of the event. But frankly speaking, a week is too much.
•–• 13:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

A week feels on the long side to me also; I'd rather not have to make a call on whether it's too long. On the practical side, today is Thursday and I have some things I have to do afk this morning (pretty promptly now) that'll take a few hours, then I have to decide what to review next, which depends in part on whether I believe the OR would still be fresh on Friday. --Pi zero (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
I think I see what's been bothering you about this article. Note that the first thing needed on review, even if reviewed several days ago, would be to shift the mention of the interviews. That goes in the lede. And once it is in the lede, its contribution to newsworthiness (both freshness and relevance) is clearer. I think it's going to be okay. Which said, I'm going to have to suspend this review and get a night's sleep (having been up till about three in the morning over the IRC problem last night); and I'll dive into it again in the morning. --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

IRC

Btw, I updated software on my laptop a few hours ago, and failed to notice it was updating Firefox to a version that didn't support chatzilla. So now I don't have IRC. I tried to set up pidgin, but found its interface incomprehensible. I suspect I'll never have IRC again. --Pi zero (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: for time being, try to use webchat.freenode.net and give me 26 hours. I will try to help you configure pidgin.
223.237.198.157 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Or I will try to send you screenshots.
223.237.198.157 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Brussels not longer host city Euro 2020

n:nl:Brussel geschrapt als gaststad voor Euro 2020 is probably an interesting article to translate? :) Some links from Reuters: Factbox - Revised matches and host stadiums for Euro 2020 and Brussels loses right to host Euro 2020 matches, Wembley gains four games --Livenws (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@LIVE NIEUWS: can’t promise anything since semester end exams are going on.
•–• 08:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Image credit

It is traditional on en.wn to give credit to the photographer. I'm trying to figure out whether there's a downside to omitting the information at the photographer's request; I can't see one off hand, yet it feels quite odd; I don't think we've ever had a photographer make such a request. (Btw, the images need status documentation, do they not? There's licensing, and who took them certainly needs to be specified on the image page as a matter of copyright, though whether to specify that information on the article is, as mentioned, a separate question.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It is not a "tradition". It is the legal requirement, and ethical as well, to attribute. And per the CC BY-ND license, attribution is must, but I am the author of this article and I am making use of it. So, even if there is a legal battle, it would be Agastya Chandrakant/acagastya [photo's author] vs acagastya [article author], and both are the same person. Since the article does not have any mention about who interviewed those guests, I think we should not have my name in the image caption. Seeing my name mentioned over hundred times in one page freaks me out, and that is why I avoided it at the first place.
•–• 12:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The legal requirement for attribution applies to the image page, and was the point of my remark about the image page; as I recall, you had said something about getting things uploaded but having not yet completed all the details that need to be completed on the image pages. One of the details needed is, not merely who uploaded the image, but, who took the picture and thus holds the copyright on it. If there were a legal question raised, it would revolve around the identification on the image page of the copyright holder.

Mentioning the photographer on the article page is traditional on en.wn, and is a separate issue from mentioning the name of an interviewer there. (Some interviewers do mention their names in the article, most do not, and we generally encourage a style that describes the interviewer as "Wikinews" or somtimes "a Wikinews correspondent" or the like.) The identity of the interviewer is usually quite clearly stated on the article collaboration page, the identity of the photographer on the image page; the two separate issues are mention of those things in the article — where there is an asymmetry, as the interviewer would be identified in the body of the article, whereas the photographer would be mentioned in an image caption, which has subtly different status than the article body proper so that mention in the image credit is different from mention in the article body.

I'm figuring this is a technical issue, so we might be able to work out what we want to do and implement it even after the 24-hour archiving horizon, which applies to content. It would of course be nice if we could have it resolved before then, but I'd like us to concentrate on being sure of what we want to do without feeling rushed by that deadline. --Pi zero (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Canyou help me?

Hey. Can you check my news Scientific expedition to the homeland Cus D'Amato was completed with series of discoveries while it's still relevant? -Gartmund (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Gartmund. I am really sorry I will be offline for several hours. So I advise you to ping @Pi zero: about it. I have a college exam two days later, and I am five hundred kilometres away from home, in a different state and I don’t have internet connection. I am really sorry.
106.201.182.206 (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you --Gartmund (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom draft

In recent days, user Ottawahitech (t · c · b) has used the WN:Water Cooler/proposals page to establish only my (user:acagastya) articles are published, and only Football articles are published. Instead of a "proposal", the user has tried to convert the project page into a rant/troll page. According to them, the review process is rigged, and frequently mentioned the main page had my articles. Looking at the statistics, my articles in 2017 accounts for ~34% of the total articles published; that is no way near monopoly or duopoly. Apart from User:Yngvadottir, I don't think there were any other users who wrote articles which could be published [I might be wrong -- I had semester end exams and then I was travelling, so I was super AFK]. It is difficult to explain Ottawahitech that articles not all articles in the review queue can be published, even if it appears to be okay for a newbie; and all articles published gets featured on the Main Page, which can only be replaced by the newer articles published on the project.

On a side note, Ottawahitech wants almost all of their articles to be userspaced without a valid explanation (they have been asked multiple times, but they never responded). Some of the articles they had requested for userspace had no useful text except a bunch of sources.

So, can the committee please decide what to do about this situation after going through the thread started by Ottawahitech? And also about their userspace request without explanation?
117.248.120.35 (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Proximus image

There's a typo in that graph; "proximus.com" is misspelled. Could you perhaps fix that? --Pi zero (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I shared a codepen.io link in the channel yesterday. It is prefixed with “pizero”. Either I can make a new chart, (which I can’t, at least for the next 30 minuets) or I need the link. Link would make this easier.
•–• 07:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been able to recover any such url. --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: was buried in the article, in a comment, I asked you to see the graph, remember?
•–• 13:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

The url in the html comment? Didn't have "pizero" in it anywhere, and didn't work for me (iirc, some javascript was visible and something that told me to wait and never did anything). I noted it in my browser history for yesterday, but figured it wasn't what was wanted.

https://codepen.io/anon/pen/NXpZzd?editors=1000

--Pi zero (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, it was html. Still doesn't load for me, though. --Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Greek transfers

Where on Earth is there an English website writing about Greek football transfers? I've already added two sources in every article written by me. Irrelevant, but, do you support a football team? Gmentis (talk) 11:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gmentis: search for <player name> on search engines. DuckDuckGo did not find any results, but Google did. Tweets are valid sources. It is difficult, yes. A reviewer must be able to verify everything. You should make use of {{source}} template to cite the sources.
•–• 12:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

"Temp" edits

If you want to see what an article looks like with or without the infobox, please use the preview function and don't save the edits. Especially, with published articles. Thanks, --SVTCobra 07:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: User talk:Acagastya#Temporary_edits.
117.198.188.35 (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Aha! That came up in the talk about Mysterious dimming of Tabby's star .... User:Robertinventor also had the problem of the infobox image showing up. Putting the image before the infobox fixes this. There is no technical reason that the infobox needs to be first (that I am aware of). If we need to codify this in the Style guide, I think we should do so. Cheers, --SVTCobra 07:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

nope. The problem would not be solved by that. Moving the images before the article text begins is not always aesthetically pleasing. And not always necessary that the images will be before the text. It is better to have infobox immediately after the date template. Standardising is good since if we ever have to automate things, we would not want a mess.
117.198.188.35 (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think it worked with the two articles we published today (well, now yesterday). The image was already at the top. Yes, moving images that belong in the middle of a long article would not be a good idea. Cheers, --SVTCobra 08:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You can see the effect here in our article which has just passed review Mysterious dimming of Tabby's star likely due to space dust, not alien superstructures, say scientists, the image and infobox are to either side with the text in the middle, works well. It could also work to have an option to replace the image in the infobox with one appropriate to the article though it's fine as an image for an article without an image. One big advantage is for sharing on Facebook - by default with infobox first the source code has <meta property="og:image" content="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/ScoCen.jpg"/> This code forces anyone who shares the article on Facebook to use the infobox image for the share preview so that the image used to previeew the article in Facebook has to be the infobox image.

If you put an appropriate image before the infobox on the page but left aligned it makes no difference to the position of the infobox - also gives the reader an image to remember the article by - and the code alters to make this image the one shared on Facebook along with the article. It works so well on the page and in Facebook that I think it might be worth considering for style guides - because after all many articles do have images at the head of the page. Like, an optional suggestion rather than that you have to do it. At least, I'd vote for this as a style guide recommendation :). @Darkfrog24: you might be interested in this conversation too as one of the main collaborators on the article Robertinventor (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion, the recommendation could be that if another image belongs in the middle, to choose an image that sums up a central point of the intro para - in this case we had another image later in the article. Robertinventor (talk)