User talk:Cromium/Archive 4

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


Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5

I'm not being contentious........

...I'm really not: but, in my old age, I've fallen out of love with throwing hypotheticals at people. Your questions to potential Reviewers/Admins.....how did you come up with those? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bddpaux: It's not contentious at all (and I’m not a spring chicken either). The questions are based on situations I’ve encountered whilst writing WN articles or reviewing them. I don’t expect stellar answers but some indication the candidate understands the question. For example the question about an article on alleged Kremlin interference in the US elections is based on the current allegations but a careful reviewer would recognise that having numerous reliable sources is no good if they are all US sources. At the very least we should have a Russian source to counterbalance the sources. If we look at U.S. responds to Russian election hacking with expulsions, sanctions, there are nine sources, three from the New York Times, two from Reuters, two from the Guardian, and one each from the Washington Post and the Daily Telegraph. Although the article cites four different Russian officials (the President, Foreign Minister, UN Ambassador, and a legislator), there is no Russian news source to counterbalance the four US and five UK source articles. Look also at how much coverage is given to what the four Russians say - one and a half paragraphs out of eleven paragraphs, whereas Mr Trump, who was not yet in the White House, gets about four paragraphs. I’m not criticising the writing and review of the article because I don’t think it was intentional but I think we need to recognise where we have leaned towards one side rather than staying neutral.
Another question I’ve asked involves the temperament of the candidates. When someone is trusted with sensitive tools, it is an implied condition that they will use those tools with care and not respond angrily to criticism. If I delete someone’s "article" and they demand an explanation, I should respond calmly, and not block them because they "annoyed me".
I hope that clarifies my questions but feel free to ask more. :) —20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
That helps. Y'know, there has been A GREAT DEAL OF BLOVIATING about this topic, but that still may mean there is value therein:"Neutral" is a funny animal. It can get dangerous here to start discussing "balanced". It is my belief that we should avoid a "teeter-totter" approach. UK-people have "balanced" so ingrained in the 'zeitgeist' of their understanding of news, that it has woven itself into their DNA. Neutral, may ALWAYS be a moving target, but I think we should always pursue it. When I get confused (whether writing or reviewing) I tend to re-focus on the simple question, "What is the NEWS EVENT being discussed here?" I don't see English WN as being here to be "fair" or "impartial" or any of that moralism-cloaked-with-fancy-words kinda stuff: we report on discrete news events. Sorry: I got a bit preachy there, but I just get a bit nervous when I read the word "balance" or "counterbalance" here. HOWEVER, I also have a HORRIBLE disease of falling in love with one or two sources MUCH TOO OFTEN, so there's that too! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just as guilty. I think I used (or abused) the BBC too much when writing articles. I looked at some of my Wikipedia contributions from a few years ago and I cited the BBC over a hundred times in the space of a six month period.
As far as balance goes, I think it’s a clear partner to NPOV. What concerns me is when we tell the news story mostly from one sides POV. If this wiki is to maintain an international approach, we have to expand our sources beyond the usual UK/US/Australian ones. A personal example is the news I watch in my (limited) free time. I used to watch just BBC and Sky News but in the last few years I’ve found it much more enlightening to also watch CNN, Al-Jazeera, and NHK World. -Green Giant (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<dropping in on the conversation> It's my understanding that balance has always failed miserably as an approach to news neutrality. We do not ask for balance. Which said, there have been rare occasions when an article has needed to be revised because aspects of a situation have been omitted in a way that may leave our readers unaware of an aspect of the situation they need in order to make informed assessments of the situation. Rare occasions, though. BRS and I, between us, came up with two examples for section WN:Neutrality#Synthesis articles, both from now more than eight years ago; I believe there was one I handled within the past few months. But I would seriously question your claim, GG, that we've had any shortfall of neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not claiming there has been a shortfall but I think balance is a crucial part of neutrality. Take as an example the article on United States military kills Qasem Soleimani. It has several sources including an official US statement, an official Iranian statement, and even an Israeli source. Could we have had a neutral article if we left out the Iranian statement? I don’t think we could have done that. I’ve asked the writer if they could include an Iraqi response because it seems odd to leave out such a response given that this occurred on their territory. That’s my understanding of the balanced approach to NPOV. -Green Giant (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We may have a breakdown of communications here over what we mean by "balance". We don't want to mislead the reader into not realizing that some perspective exists. I'm not disagreeing with you about the danger, in this case, of misleading our readers into being unaware of the Iranian perspective. However, I believe the word "balance" can mislead those of us who review, and should be avoided. "Balance" has been used dishonestly by various propaganda networks in the modern age. A neutrality strategy called (iirc) "balance" has failed for the BBC. And a key difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews is that we do not ask for balance in the Wikipedian sense. Those are all various forms of balance that involve an excessive amount of active subjective intervention by authors. We do, yes, want to avoid misleading omissions. In explicating the difference between the Wikipedia and Wikinews approaches to neutrality, a classic case routinely cited is that when we're interviewing a neo-Nazi (or someone else with far-from-center beliefs), we are not automatically giving "undue weight" to the interviewee's positions. (There's a bit on the intricacies of neutral interviews at WN:Neutrality#Original articles.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Very much a statement of opinion here, but):The Soleimani thing is an interesting case, because EVERY source is going to smell like a big giant flaming hand grenade, because it is such a BIG ISSUE. Neutrality will have to be guarded very carefully. Interestingly, IMO I don't think we can achieve neutrality WITHOUT including bits from the U.S., Iran AND Iraq because each country is so DEEPLY ensconced in the issue at hand. --Bddpaux (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<nods> The reader to be informed has to be aware that all three have their perspectives. We don't calculate weights to a hair, 'cause we're a news site after all, but if we left one of those out we'd be leaving out something genuinely needful. --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United States military kills Qasem Soleimani

Just noting, I've submitted an edit for someone else to sight. (I sighted some edits submitted by DannyS712.) --Pi zero (talk) 05:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary rename

Not to make a mountain out of a molehill (what's done is done, and there's certainly no call to third-guess it), but thought I'd mention. I don't think the headline was actually incorrect; it's debatable whether Parliament ought to be uniformly capitalized in this situation since it's not the official title of the body, and in any case it is the parliament that Iraq has. And we really don't like to rename articles post-publish if we can avoid it. (It's easy to forget full-move-protection, when one has the bits to breeze past it as we both do, but I did remember the standard precautions this time.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi zero (t · c · b) Cheers. I was actually in two minds about this but I based it on the Parliament website which uses both "Parliament" and "Council of Representatives". I was just getting ready to create a category for it. -Green Giant (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I might (as I say) have left the headline well-enough alone, but of course, yeah, I can see the point there. As for a category — cool. Once upon a time I set out to create lots of categories for legislatures of various countries, but it turned out to be too labor-intensive and I decided to leave it mostly for some unspecified future day when maybe we could set up a semi-automated assistant for the task. --Pi zero (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing thought

The usual edit summary I've put on those sorts of edits has been "decat for userspace". --Pi zero (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I might have put something like that with other kinds of user pages but I used that summary because it is a draft article (unlikely to be published). I imagine if they could refresh the article they could just remove the colons. -Green Giant (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seismic activity continues to shake Puerto Rico with 5.2 quake

I've submitted an edit to add an image; if you've a chance to take a look to review the edit. --Pi zero (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Green Giant (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

like what

like what? and explain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anayguy (talkcontribs) 11 February 2020‎

@Anayguy: Please read our guide at WN:ARTICLE for how to write an article. -Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green Giant. Please check this space.

--Gryllida (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any update, please? Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh reports five new deaths due to COVID-19, a daily highest

Please check this, if you have a minute. Thank you! --Gryllida (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done - reviewed. -Green Giant (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you a lot for this. I've learned a bit, some new some refreshed, concepts from your feedback. Appreciated. Gryllida (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about data and graphs

I was wondering, for a graph like this: data is not copyrighted, rectangles are under CC0 for PD-geometry. (I generally put my media under CC0, but) Does it feel okay to put such work under a relatively restrictive license like CC BY(-SA), as compared to CC0? I want to know your opinions. (We can also discuss this via email if you don't want to publicly state your opinions)
•–• 00:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acagastya, I’ve not pinged you because I’m about to go to sleep and I think this conversation could be carried on in a few hours. As far as I understand copyright law, I have not seen anything to suggest that facts and data are eligible for copyright. Certainly graphs usually fall under PD unless you are doing something creative. Are you proposing to license the graph or the code or both? -Green Giant (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the graph only. There are many graphs here, and on Commons which are under CC BY or CC BY-SA licenses. Even though they should be PD-Geometry or PD-ineligible. Obviously, if I go around changing the license on Commons, many users would not be happy with that. But then, on enwn, I would create and timely replace with a more free alternative. I find asserting copyright over something that was not eligible for copyright is an abuse. Would you suggest I should propose PD-graph on commons, which is like the amalgamation of PD-shapes and PD-ineligible? I hope you sleep well. I will sent=d you an email after today's interview. Bye!
•–• 01:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, just found {{PD-Chart}} on Commons. So there is no issue with this. Thanks!
•–• 01:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look at...

this?
•–• 14:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Acagastya: --Green Giant (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hi, Green Giant! I have just finished the transcript of the interview. Phew! Now only the synthesis part is left which I would do later. That means, now I can finally respond to the email (sorry for the delay). I was wondering if you would be able to monitor the enwn RC from 1730 UTC till you log off? That would be really nice if you could. Thanks!
•–• 15:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Excellent! Yes, I’ll be online for a few hours with various things. I’ll keep an eye on RC. --Green Giant (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
•–• 15:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help

Hi, Green Giant. Yann once told us in a copyright license not to use GNU FDL for media files. However, this file is originally listed under GNU FDL. Thus, I avoided LRing myself. I would really like to use the file provided the license is okay. Could you please check and let me know? I tried to look for alternative images on NIH and all I found was CC BY NC media.
•–• 08:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Yes, Yann is pretty knowledgeable on these things. It is best to avoid GFDL for anything other than documentation because it was never written with images in mind. The file you point to is absolutely fine because GFDL was once the main license accepted by Wikimedia. In 2009, most GFDL files were relicensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 because of an agreement with the Free Software Foundation. The relicensing applied only if it was published as GFDL 1.2 or later versions. If you look at the source page, it points to their GFDL page, which at the foot of the page includes the necessary statement. There is no need to review the license because it was effectively reviewed in 2009 by a bot. Finally, yes you can use the file! --Green Giant (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying this, Green Giant. I have never liked the misuse (better say improper) use of GNU FDL for media files. I just wanted to confirm if the file would not be abruptly deleted from commons. Since you have confirmed it, I will proceed with it. Thanks, once again.
•–• 11:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading video file to Commons

Hi, Green Giant. Regarding the interview I am working on, I want to put the interview on Commons. However, it is an mp4 file. Is there a way I can upload that to Commons using some tools? video2commons does not seem to be working.
•–• 05:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Hello. Unfortunately I have not used any video upload tools. If video2commons is not working, perhaps try VideoConvert? It is the only other such tool I can think of. --Green Giant (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggesting me that. I will have a look. Thanks!
•–• 06:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the comments left on my page.

First off, thank you for your time, I see you have taken a look into the subject and that is good regardless of the outcome.

If the story is a trending story in the united states why shouldn't I want to bring the story to Wikipedia? All the sources used for any materials publishing for Rashad McCrorey are major respected news outlets. And me being new to the wiki shouldn't penalize the subject. I'm obviously having trouble learning how to download pictures. the subject has pictures all over the internet.

The writing is written in a neutral tone. In Wikipedia, I wasn't aware of the subject already having an article in the draft which verifies notability and my very first draft was rejected and then deleted, it said ambiguous advertising but it was the very first draft and another article with the name was already in a draft which is really why it was deleted. The subject now meets wiki three standard but I will wait and see if the story continues to develop to see if I will try again to publish him an article. This story is trending here in America with legitimate news outlets covering the story. And to note that you had to do investigating reporting to see that I been working on sharing the subject's story on wiki, and it didn't come through in the tone of the writing shows I like the story but can present it in a neutral non-promotional tone.

The Iranian news story is obviously a rejected Wikipedia article that got moved to wiki news. That article is close to 10 thousand words and is clear self-promotion. As a news source holding up this story, how did that story clear? global or non-global audience. that is a 20 page book if not 10,000 plus words.

And r.i.p to the mathematician but none of those sources are not credible. the youtube channel, the opinion blog is an opinion blog none the less and tweets are non-tweets from news reporters.

all of the subjects used in the Rashad McCrorey article are all credible sources written in a neutral voice.

In addition at the time of the debate, no Wikinews article has been published in 3 days. This is not a weekly newsletter.

We should continue to work on the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NanaKofiER (talkcontribs) 10:35, 19 April 2020‎

Please sign all your comments with four tildes like this ~~~~. Well, Wikinews is not a weekly newsletter. I’m not sure why you think it is but please do point out where it says so. We do not have the need to publish daily or weekly.
Investigating wiki matters is part of the roles I have volunteered for both here and on Wikipedia Commons. I am an administrator on both wikis and one of the areas I work on is the licensing of images. Another area I work on is reviewing draft articles on Wikinews. Your draft article was listed as needing a review in the Wikinews:Newsroom, which is why looked at it, with the intention of reviewing it if I could. The first thing I always notice is any photo because such images are necessarily hosted either on Wikinews or on Wikimedia Commons.
The vast majority of images found on the internet are not licensed for re-use. The fact that any image is available on the internet does not mean it is in the public domain (which is a legal concept). What I suspect you have done is you mistakenly assumed that photos on the NYDN website or on GhanaWeb were free to re-use. If there are no free photos, you could try a fair use exemption for one copyright photo but it must be uploaded to Wikinews rather than Commons. Even then the use of such an image is heavily restricted.
What you should not do is restore dubious photos that have been hidden because of copyright issues.
  • Every Wikimedia user has multiple local accounts on separate Wikimedia wikis (such as Wikipedia and Wikinews) but they are all linked through a global account. You can find yours at Special:CentralAuth/NanaKofiER.
Everybody else can see which wikis you have been editing on and look at your contributions at each one. It is a normal part of wiki editing and allows as much transparency as possible. Obviously any contributions which are deleted will not be visible to most people. However, deleted pages McPhee a summary of who deleted them, when and why.
  • Bringing a trending story to Wikipedia is absolutely fine but you have to follow our community policies and guidelines in the same way you would follow the policies and guidelines on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and other websites.
On Wikinews we use stricter criteria for news articles than Wikipedia does for encyclopedic articles. On Wikipedia the rules about drafting only apply to new users because some years ago the community was being flooded with badly written and badly sourced articles. If you continued editing there and made positive contributions, you would find that there will be a point when you become trusted enough to be able to write and publish articles directly, without going into the draft area. ::* However, on Wikinews, all published articles must go through a rigorous process of peer-review. The articles you have criticised went through the same process as your article is undergoing. The article about the chess player was not from Wikipedia. If you read past the first section you will see it is in the form of an interview. Such an article would never be accepted on Wikipedia because it is not encyclopedic.
The process you are criticising is not one user being "judge and jury". It is a process that was agreed on by the Wikinews community over many years. If there is some aspect of it that you feel should not be there or should be modified, you are welcome to start a discussion on an appropriate page such as the Wikinews:Water cooler.
I will not comment on the actual article much but I will say I agree with the comments made so far by the two other reviewers. Their feedback has been constructive and follows our guidelines. As for working on it, by all means please do continue. --Green Giant (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibility

Hi, Green Giant. I know this is not the ideal place to discuss this, but I was wondering works under CC BY x.0 can be relicensed under newer CC BY licenses. That is forward compatibility. But what about backwards compatibility? Higher can't come to lower, that is my understanding. Why exactly, that I could never truly understand. Could you please shed light on that?
•–• 19:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Excellent question. There are a number of reasons why they are not backward compatible but the most important is that each newer version is progressively more freer and more flexible. If there was backward compatibility, a licensor could demand the application of the strictest requirements in the earliest licenses. That would effectively make the later versions redundant. An example is that under 3.0 and earlier licenses, if the licensee breaches the terms of the license, there is no official way for them to get back under the license. In 4.0, they get 30 days to get themselves back into compliance. Another way of looking at it is that there is only one-way horizontal compatibility between a BY-NC-SA license and a BY license. If you licensed a work under a BY license, you could not realistically ask licensees to comply with a change to BY-NC-SA. However, you could tell a BY-NC-SA licensee that you are removing the NC or the SA or both. I hope that clarifies things. If not, ask more questions! --Green Giant (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a look...

At the video on this page? The entire article is under open access. And the page is under CC BY 4.0, sot is it safe to assume the video is under CC BY 4.0 too?
•–• 07:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Yes, it is safe to assume the video is under the same license. The credits at the start name the paper authors and say the video was produced by Motion Science. Ordinarily the producer would hold copyright but clearly in this case it is a work for hire - Motion Science were hired to make the video but would have done so according to the creative decisions of JHL et al. Since the video is also embedded in the document, it forms an integral part of the whole work. The license applies to the video. --Green Giant (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I have added it as a video2commons task. Could you please LR it once it is done? I will notify you about it.
•–• 11:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: File:Harm Aversion video explanation.webm.
•–• 12:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: Done. --Green Giant (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IRC

Hi, Green Giant. I was wondering which software or website you are using for IRC. (Is it this?) I think you are closing the software/website and that is why you are getting exited from IRC. (For that, I use the free tier of IRCCloud) Depending on your software/website, I might be able to suggest you how to not lose connection.
•–• 13:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I’m not a big fan of IRC but I’ve been looking for a mobile client that doesn’t log me out when I switch to another app. I’m not sure if it’s a phone setting I need to change but three apps so far seem to have the same problem. Any advice would be welcome. --Green Giant (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you have been using on the mobile phone. If you want it to be running in the background, I would recommend irccloud (mikemoral had recommended me that). I remember the initial setup took some time, let me have a look and then I will tell you how to do it.
•–• 14:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hi. So I just went through it. You can use either irccloud.com website (when you are on your laptop/desktop) or its mobile app: hoping you have iOS or Android.

  1. The first thing you need to do is to register an account. You need to enter your name, email address, and a password for IRCCloud.
  2. Then you need to confirm your email address.
  3. Then you need to setup a new connection. It might also be called "Add Network".
  4. In "Server settings", enter "irc.freenode.net" for "Hostname".
  5. In "Your Identity", enter a nickname you want IRC users to see. Like Pi zero has "pizero". "Full name" is optional. Leave it blank if you do not wish your real name to be seen by other IRC users. Its default value is the real name you used during registering for IRCCloud account.
  6. If your IRC nick name has a password (I remember it had), in that case, do this: In the Passwords section, enter your "NickServ password". The one which you use to identify your nick.
  7. In channels to join, add "#wikinews-en". If you want to join more channels, you can do that later. Let's stop here, the steps necessary for you to join #wikinews-en via irccloud.

In case you want to watch a video, I think this should do.
•–• 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these instructions. I have done all of the recommended steps but it is still disconnecting when I switch to another app. I guess I’ll just have to put up with it. --Green Giant (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it still works, Green Giant! If you see it says "connecting..." it does not mean you were disconnected from IRC. It means it is establishing your connection to IRCCloud server. Please see a PING message I have sent you on IRC. If you can see that, it worked!
•–• 14:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Could you please join #wikinews-en,Green Giant?
202.38.181.58 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grossly offensive?

I was interested to see you had a way, after all, to purge usernames from even the log of account creations. I don't particularly object to it. I do have a suggestion. As Wikinews is NOTCENSORED, rather than "grossly offensive" as a Special:Log/newusers summary entry, I'd suggest some variant of "vandalism", the notion being that the username itself constitutes vandalism of the project, having no news value. (One could, in some cases, alternatively cite "intimidation/harassment", but "vandalism" has the virtue of simplicity and gives least possible recognition to the vandal.) Just a thought. --Pi zero (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: yes, I don’t think I’ve used it for a while now but it seemed necessary. The "grossly offensive" is from the options for hiding revisions on other wikis. I’ll use "vandal" or "LTA" in future. By the way, are you likely to be on IRC today? Cheers. --Green Giant (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I usually lurk there (don't take the "afk" suffix on my nick too much to heart); I'll be actually-afk (likely with a different nick-suffix) for probably the next, oh, three hours or so (I expect to grocery-shop this afternoon, which has become complicated lately by bioprecautionary measures). --Pi zero (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm back.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right to vanish

It has been an important point in some past cases on Wikinews, as I recall, that Wikinews does not recognize a "right to vanish", which also plays out journalistically in the non-wikimedian world (such as the EU) as anti-journalism censorship. It is in the nature of our approach to individual reputation on Wikinews that a user's past actions are vitally important and should always be taken into consideration when addressing their actions going forward (which doesn't ever mean not giving people a considered second chance, of course, but does mean not giving them more benefit-of-doubt than is appropriate given their past). I have, of course, made no attempt to do anything about what I perceive to be the Foundation's... euphemistically, screwing with our record inappropriately and without consulting us, because the Foundation's past treatment of Wikinews, as well as their treatment of the volunteer community generally, leads me to believe that objecting would be a complete waste of time. However, I'm not comfortable with actively erasing the evidence locally. --Pi zero (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of this but the reason I have hidden the pages is that the user request was less about vanishing per se and more about mitigating the effects of being "outed" some time ago. I was intending to go through those pages and selectively hide anything that could help identification e.g, name and email address etc. It looked to be a major edit and I didn’t want to leave what I was doing currently (fixing those license templates). This user has a large number of files without correct licensing i.e. they have not fully specified a license. It was that which led me to their pages. If you’re free sometime later today I wanted to discuss the issue on IRC. I’ll probably be online in about six hours. If not, another day is fine. Cheers. --Green Giant (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does help clarify the situation; thank you.

Likely I'll be available on IRC at around that time. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESO research papers

Hi, Green Giant. There is a template on Commons c:template:ESO which says contents of ESO are under CC BY 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Does that mean the research papers are also under CC BY 4.0?
•–• 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Unfortunately it appears the scientific papers are not released under the CC license. See the Notes section in the copyright page, specifically the second asterisked note. --Green Giant (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about this one, which says it is "Free Access". I don't know if that is same as Open Access or not.
•–• 23:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: Sadly, it is not the same as open access. It means you can read it without paying a subscription similar to how some pay news websites might let you read one or two articles a month for free. --Green Giant (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The ESO's website, which has the Images and Videos subpage has the CC BY icons. However, they are hosted on YouTube, and they are not tagged under the YouTube CC BY. I understand that would be because YouTube has CC BY 3.0 and ESO uses 4.0. However, I would be uploading a bunch of videos to Commons. Could you please LR it? I will add the links here.
103.254.130.254 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. --Green Giant (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
13. So far. video2commons is taking too much time. I will add that too. Soon. Could you please have a look?
•–• 19:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: Done --Green Giant (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
There are a few more, I will list later. However, do you think you can join IRC for some time?
•–• 16:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another query. The photos you see on this webpage are rendered using this code which is under GNU GLPv3. What is the license status of the file: a computer generated image, in that case? It is a very trippy thing. Could you please clarify?
•–• 17:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: I was busy at work yesterday so I was unable to respond quickly. Interesting question about the black holes. If I understand it correctly, the images are created using the code with variables. The GPL only applies to the code itself. The images are copyright protected unless the author explicitly licensed them. For example, if you create an image using Photoshop, it is the output that needs a license before others can reuse it. The use of Photoshop does not extend its license(s) to the output images. If you’re going to upload these images to Commons, I’d suggest asking the author to explicitly license them. --Green Giant (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have downloaded the software to make my own simulations. As it turns out, some of the variables are under GNU GPL. So that is a plus.
•–• 12:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No wait! If I am using the default config, which is under GNU GPL, and letting it render, what should I write in the author field and the license field?
•–• 13:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... it depends on the variables and how much creative input there is from you. If you are deciding a significant portion of variables then you are likely the author. If not, the code author is likely the author of the output image. --Green Giant (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
for author's default values, what would be the license? The values are in a file which is also under GNU GPL.
2401:4900:49A3:4C83:1CC0:649D:BDC0:5287 (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d guess it could be GPL if the author didn’t specify a separate license but I outdent recommend GPL for an image to upload to Commons. It’s only really suitable for software. --Green Giant (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even I flinch seeing GPL license for images. But I do require that. So let me change the variables in that case. Also, can you please join IRC?
•–• 20:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this first photo here? Would that qualify for CC BY 4.0? Or do I have to use it as FU?
•–• 21:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a look, Green Giant?
103.254.130.254 (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that would have to be fair use because it is a photo of an identifiable person (per the pink box at the copyright page). Such images cannot be used commercially, which means it could not be hosted on Commons. --Green Giant (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hmm. Are we talking about "ESO materials, images and videos may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESO or any ESO employee of a commercial product or service"? I understood it as "ESO <works> may not be used to state or imply endorsement by <the org or employees> for a commercial product or service". Does CC BY license has a clause where it says endorsement is okay?
•–• 20:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sentence at the end of the pink Conditions box, which says "If an image includes a picture of an identifiable person, using that image for commercial purposes is not permitted." --Green Giant (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. In that case, can you please delete these two files: File:Marianne Heida.jpg and File:Dietrich Baade.tif?
•–• 20:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Green Giant (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
•–• 21:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, did you see my message on IRC?
•–• 10:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven’t. Was it direct to me or to the group? --Green Giant (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
it was in the group. It must be lost in the backscroll. Wait, I will send you directly.
•–• 11:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

I award you the tireless contributor barnstar for taking care of the archives.
•–• 11:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CU request

Hi, Green Giant. I am not logged in right now, but can you please CU this user FilthyFilthyTheComeback? Reason being you previously mentioned this user shared IP with another troll account, plus this edit.
103.254.130.254 (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something I was thinking about

Hi, Green Giant. I had this thought yesterday. Consider John Doe clicks a photo and licenses it under CC BY-SA. Now, I can't share that photo on Facebook (just taking an example) because Facebook's terms and conditions include conditions which violate CC BY-SA. But now I want you to consider this. John Doe uploads the photo on Facebook, after having released it under CC BY-SA. Not only the photo is under a copyleft license; Facebook also has some of the rights to that image granted by the author (in T&C) -- as long as the author does not delete it. Since Facebook already has certain rights to that photo, now, shouldn't it be okay for me to reshare it on Facebook (as long as author does not delete it), because author had already granted some of the rights to Facebook?
•–• 13:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving images!

Hello, and thank you for moving images from Commons to Wikinews. Given the constant barrage of AfD nominations there, this is particularly welcome. Curious, is there a tool to help in moving, or are you doing this completely by hand? If it's automated, and something available to me, I might want to do this for other articles, and for the non-English translations. (Being mostly photos, a variety of my "con reports" have ended up on other Wikinews projects.) Thank you again! -- Zanimum (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing your userpage, with a "Move-to-commons assistant"... is there a reverse version? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanimum: You’re welcome. I’m happy to help but unfortunately there’s no tool or bot. --Green Giant (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An even bigger thank you, then! -- Zanimum (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are free today...

Hi, Green Giant. I wondered if you are free today. I want to discuss something. Can you be online on IRC tonight?
•–• 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What time? I’ll probably be free for an hour or so, about six hours from now. --Green Giant (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any time is okay. I will be there. so will pi, and gry.
103.254.130.254 (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I should be free in six hours. I’m just having a break between meetings and they are due to finish late. --Green Giant (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see User_talk:Acagastya#Luxembourg_article.
•–• 10:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hi, Green Giant. Good to see you back!
•–• 18:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but it is probably not for long. --Green Giant (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Okay. There are five-six photos on Neanderthals 'knew what they were doing': Archæologist Dr Naomi Martisius discusses her findings about Neanderthals' behaviour with Wikinews which need LR. I think the FURs are okay; and can always be fixed later if something seems off. But could you LR the files, if you have some time to spare, please?
•–• 18:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list them and I will review probably in about two hours. --Green Giant (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Here is the list:

  1. File:Bone tools used by Neanderthals.webp Done
  2. File:ZooMS- Species identification of parchment using peptide mass finger printing.webm Done
  3. File:Comparison of MALDI-ToF-MS spectra from the bag, eraser and destructive ZooMS methods for sample DR-1662s (cropped).png Done
  4. File:Examples of non-destructive MALDI-TOF MS spectra (cropped).png Not done
  5. File:Bone artefacts and ZooMS analysis.webp Done
  6. File:Reinbukken på frisk grønt beite. - panoramio.jpg. (checked by panoramio bot) Not done
  7. File:Annual report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution (1909) (14592689010).jpg (checked by FlickrreviewR) Not done
@Acagastya: Apologies for a couple of hours becoming several days but I’ve been out of town for work purposes. I have reviewed most of them but the last two do not need human review. Also number 4 has been reviewed by way of the source document being reviewed. Cheers. --Green Giant (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Green Giant. I hope you are doing okay. Thank you for LRing those files!
It is okay -- the delay, as Pi zero asks -- we all are volunteers. And we do have life outside wiki. (pi may disagree on the previous line, though). Being an LR myself, I know most files will pass, because I have evaluated them prior to upload. But I want to avoid the ugly case of the author attempting to revoke the license and then we have to use it under FU instead. Thank you for finding time to LR those files as that interview will now flow smoothly!
•–• 15:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hello, Green Giant. If you have some time today, could you have a look at the media used for Open source game developer Perttu Ahola talks about Minetest with Wikinews, please? Two are FU files. Rest others are screenshots, mostly from Minetest. It is an open source game under LGPL. There are some files I can go through, and I will do that, to reduce the time and effort you would have to spend. But there are some which I don't know how to handle.
•–• 15:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: I have reviewed some of them but a few cannot (or do not need to) be done:
--Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the last two, fixed. I think I am doing something fundamentally wrong, while using the {{url}} template.
•–• 18:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re the second link, Green Giant, that is most definitely not an own work, I agree. I have added links to the website -- can you please have a look once again? And thank you so much for going through them!
•–• 18:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last one is still giving 404. Green Giant (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it now. Re the forum screenshot, the code is indeed under GPL, yes.
•–• 18:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Green Giant (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personality rights

Hi, Green Giant. I just realised I forgot to add personality rights warning for two portraits:

  1. File:Celeron55.jpg
  2. File:Portrait of Dr Naomi Martisius.png

Those two are now on the main page and they are protected on Commons. Could you please add the warnings?
•–• 20:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Done --Green Giant (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Green Giant. By the way, there are some files I have used for Astronomer Anthony Boccaletti discusses observation of birth of potential exoplanet with Wikinews. Could you please LR those which are eligible? (I have handled most of those which I could. Three are in bad condition, and I might have to replace. And I can't LR my own files.)
•–• 21:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed some of them. Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you! I will go though them once again, swap those which are problematic.
•–• 21:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This file may need newer version of LR, I think.
•–• 22:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If NASA's work is tagged under CC BY, (in the above example), should one fix the license to PD-NASA?
•–• 18:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on whether NASA has the only credit. If so, PD-NASA is the correct license. If not (e.g. NASA/ESA), then the CC license is the correct. Green Giant (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be NASA's James Webb Telescope division.
•–• 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then PD-NASA is the correct license. Green Giant (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election 2020

As a current Arb, would you be willing to stand for Arbcom again this year? If you don't wish to nominate yourself, I would be happy to nominate you. --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: Thank you for the message. I would appreciate it if you would nominate me. I would be happy to nominate you (if not already nominated). Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As happens, Gryllida has already nominated me. I appreciate the offer, though. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom voting is over, Green Giant. And I am sorry to inform, you were not elected just by one vote margin. Thank you for resolving disputes this season: you are still an ArbCom member until August 4. The new season is to being on August 4. I wish you all the best for 2021 elections, and once again, thank you so much for doing a wonderful job as an ArbCom member in 2019-2020.
•–• 23:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Acagastya: No worries. The people I voted for were all elected! Green Giant (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Happy to see you around. Is there anything that I can help you with -- in terms of software development, perhaps -- to make it easier to write news articles? Thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo

Trump caravan article is abandoned, yeah. Went stale during the election, when other stuff needed attended to. The Irate Communist (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Name is inappropriate for the topic, it's best recommended to change it. Allowance (talk)

Abuse filter

Hi, Green Giant. I was thinking if we should import a filter to prevent people creating pages which contain email. Do you know of any on Commons or enwp?
•–• 12:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UDEL

Hi, Green Giant. Just a head's up, I will be undeleting GitHub re-enables public access to youtube-dl after EFF sends a letter challenging the DMCA takedown and its talk because I am planning for an interview. If I don't get anything substantial, I will tag it as abandoned again. I will mention this on WN:DR too.
•–• 09:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Hi, Green Giant. I needed some help (and advise) regarding abuse filters. Could you come by on IRC on #wikinewsie-group? Or should I email you instead? If you don't have time, it is all right, I will email you then. It is not that urgent, but surely need some help.
103.48.105.27 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Many thanks for helping with original reporting this year. Happy New Year. --Gryllida (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a tip

Hi, Green Giant. Thanks for deleting that page when it was created the second time. Just a tip (I feel bad for saying that, since you have more experience than me), if a page is deleted for a second time, change protection level to autoconfirmed users. Something we have been (or at least I have been) doing lately.
•–• 21:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Acagastya: Don’t feel bad about giving good advice. I just got waylaid by a Checkuser on that account, which revealed a nest of spam accounts. Whilst locking them, I got a notification about something else on Meta Wiki and then an email from work! 😊 -Green Giant (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]