User talk:Green Giant

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Meta Commons Wikipedia Wikiversity Wikibooks Wikisource Wikinews 
This is an English Wikinews user talk page, where you can leave messages for Green Giant.
This is not an article or an article talk page. If you find this page on any site other than English Wikinews, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware the page may be outdated and the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikinews. The original page is located at https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Green_Giant.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • Click here to start a new topic.
  • Be polite and friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.


How you read news[edit]

I would like to read news every day, and am looking for help. How do you read your news? What software do you use? (I use mPages RSS client for Firefox, but I would be happy to learn what you use.) --Gryllida (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Interesting question. My main way of reading news is the Safari browser on my iPhone, where I have a number of sources of news. It is not significantly different to any other browser but it is convenient for the times I read the news - mainly the 25 minutes on the train to and from work. I don’t really like opening my laptop on the train even if I get a seat with a table. However a mobile phone can be used even when I’m stood. -Green Giant (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing this. There are several other things taking away my free time at the moment but once they are sorted out, I will get back to you. Gryllida (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom election 2019[edit]

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) 02:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, I’d be happy to stand if you are willing to nominate me. -Green Giant (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

CU[edit]

Since you are a steward, can you check if the newly created accounts, which are spamming the RC are originating from the same IP, and if yes, maybe do something about it.
103.254.128.98 (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I checked them earlier this morning as I was deleting some of the spam. The IP addressed are all over the place with some showing multiple spam accounts and others showing relatively few. I globally blocked a few of the IPs and modified one of the abuse filters (which seems to have stopped over a hundred attempted edits and blocked five of the bot accounts). I think it is likely to need more tweaking but as it stands we seem to be coping. -Green Giant (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you mean this abuse filter, which read "06:14, July 8, 2019 Abuse filter talk contribs blocked DaciaLevvy3380 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled) (Automatically blocked by abuse filter. Description of matched rule: General spam)"?
103.254.128.98 (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that’s the one, although I will be doing more CU searches this evening on the accounts that popped up after I left for work. -Green Giant (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Review?[edit]

Do you think you could review an article, which is on its last day, after an hour from now? Might be ready even before that.
•–• 18:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I’ll have a look. -Green Giant (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I am about to save the article and cite all the sources, so that you can start reading the sources.
•–• 19:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
But can you check if you can access the WaPo link? I have mentioned on the talk page.
•–• 19:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Done.
•–• 20:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Review query[edit]

I'm wondering what this is about. I hear from acagastya that they didn't use that source; and reviewers are particularly never to add sources (though I've been known to put one on the list that I know was used). Should that be an external link, instead? --Pi zero (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I think it is the original article in Spanish from AFP but I can’t find the English version. I don’t think we should be linking to aggregator pages if the original is available. It probably might be better as an external link. -Green Giant (talk) 07:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Hm. What we're very careful about is documenting the fact of syndication, since it goes directly to which sources are independent of each other. We have instructions about how to write the citations: the syndicate appears in the author field. --Pi zero (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Aggregators have been tricky. I would like to know why you would object it, Green Giant. There was a time when I formed an opinion about it. But it was a weak opinion and there was no point holding it strongly. I was concerned about the quality of output from news aggregators, but in my experience, I never found any issue with that. I would always look for the original links (of course in English if they are available) but if I do not, then I go for aggregator. All these years, I had a fair share of experience of dealing with poor sources. And I do not tend to use aggregators unless there are other sources ready to back up the claim.
•–• 14:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
My main objection was that although you’ve cited two articles through Yahoo, at least one of them (the Independent) is available directly from the newspaper website. I don’t see why we should cite an aggregator in place of the original source the aggregator copied from. With the AFP source I was thinking of failing the WN article because we don’t have an original version in English i.e. where did Yahoo get that AFP page? This is why I added the Spanish article from AFP because it looked like at least a partial translation. -Green Giant (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me we should avoid making things more difficult for the reporter, whose task is already formidable enough (just as the reviewer's is; labor-saving is a long-term goal for us all around); thus, we should allow the reporter to use what they've got. Btw, in my experience it's often difficult, maybe impossible, to find the original, for one reason or another. Amongst the many possible reasons: I've long figured that wire services deliberately don't make some of their articles directly available to the public, so that news outlets who pay to syndicate the article know that their readers can't bypass them by going directly to the wire service. --Pi zero (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Failing for that reason seems harsh. Am I overlooking something? There are times when NYT uses reports by the AP or Reuters and adds top of it. We can't say unto what degree; but I can't think of any reason why it would be failed. (Also, please ping me when you reply; so am working on a transcript of an interview, and the spamming of the RC makes it very hard to keep track. This one is the longest interview so far, and I might not respond or read the message immediately.)
•–• 21:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)