User talk:Gryllida

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

Contents

2013[edit]

Freshman[edit]

Thank you dear friend, Gryllida. It's my first time writing here, I'm a little mixed up but your helps were really effective. Again thank you.--Soroush90gh (talk) 07:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries — I also added relevant articles and talk pages to my watchlist to keep track of the progress, so feel free to add questions there and I'd see them. Welcome. Gryllida 07:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok dear, so would you just take a look on my two articles, and tell me are they ready to go to review process? or they must be more developed? Thanks a lot--Soroush90gh (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the election article is acceptable if you rewrite it to refocus it at the news event — see what article structure is required for publication (especially the headline and the first paragraph content requirements) — while the other one is not fresh anymore; a news event has to have happened within last week but you dated it as May 10. Gryllida 07:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I changed the title to make a hot news and I think the new title is more suitable for Wikinews. I work on the another article. Thank you because of your helps. Can I know your real name and nationality? I'm Soroush (Cyrus) from Iran. Glad to meet you virtually:D--Soroush90gh (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks better now; an interesting challenge could be to add the Where, When, Who, Why, What, How questions answers to the first paragraph, also known as "lede", while keeping it as short as possible. Gryllida 08:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and headlines should be in present tense, and I've just fixed them for you. Gryllida 08:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gryllida for your review, I will work on them but I guess it's too late now because they're not hot anymore.--Soroush90gh (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The event was in May 21 which is yesterday (in UTC time) — "fresh" is an event that happened within last week with fresh details within last 2-3 days; please don't worry: I'm sure you'll make it as long as you keep trying, as you have a few more days for this one. --Gryllida 15:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Note[edit]

Just as a head's up, File:Chris Simon Oct 09 5.jpg has the year as 1899. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That appears to be from the image metadata; I requested a real year from the photographer. Gryllida 02:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Great interview by the way! —Mikemoral♪♫ 08:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with understanding how much original reporting costs[edit]

Hello and I apologize for writing in English. As all language Wikinews improves, The Wikinewsie Group wants to be able better support original reporting done by contributors like you. One of our newsletters at The Wikinewsie Group/Newsletter said you have recently published an original report. This is why I am contacting you.

Members of the The Wikinewsie Group are trying to assess the costs associated with original reporting across all Wikinews projects. This way, we can determine how much original reporting currently costs, who is paying for it, what Wikinews and other projects get for these costs (especially when paid for by unpaid, volunteer contributor reporters). This information can then be used in applying for grants, measuring the success of Wikinews original reporting and seeing how reporters can be better supported. If you could complete this survey on that topic, we would very much appreciate it. We will try to anonymize the responses as best possible when writing up any report. Thank you very much for taking the time to fill it out (especially in English). Please do not hesitate to ask me or pi zero about any questions you may have about this research. We hope the results will enable us to better assist you in conducting more original reporting on Wikinews. --LauraHale (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, that's a dupe; I've done that from a talk page message on another wiki. Again thanks for the research, I appreciate it.
Do I see you're human, now? :-) --Gryllida 08:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please.......[edit]

....see my additional comment. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

2014[edit]

User:Gryllida/Handling new article submissions[edit]

en.WP blocks tor separately from the central model, so I cannot comment there.

  • The goal of this proposal is to better filter new article submissions from anonymous/new contributors, under the aspirational goal of improving recruitment/retention.
    - This seems unlikely to be a profitable sourcing for new articles. Due to the nature of an encyclopedia, notable/acceptable content will become progressively more-precise as the collection grows and the ability of laypersons to contribute substantive content will be reduced.
    - The suggested model appears to require a net increase in volunteer hours cost. Assuming it does displace the existing systems, it adds in review time/input from topical experts - a fairly rare commodity.
    - Related to the above, it seems to me likely that articles will be queued for review by most wikiprojects, which often have very low activity, thus likely to obviate any recruitment/retention benefit. That is, the wait times on average may not change.
Even with the above, however, this system may have additional benefits such as tracking progress, automation[xkcd], and providing measures for new content development. You might consider a ticket model of implementation. - Amgine | t 15:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thought the massive crowd of so-called «patrollers», were they distributed to WikiProjects, would make them less inactive. Gryllida 21:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Heh. that'd be a great feat, worth instituting the process by itself! - Amgine | t 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I have also put this at the relevant Wikipedia page. Gryllida 08:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Young Musicians perform in SE London[edit]

I have edited the articles answering your questions and added new source for verification. Thank you in advance for reviewing and approving this article. - Uksharma3 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Please review my article Sri Lanka ends drought to win ICC World T20 2014 at Wikinews. --FSCEM45212 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, FSCEM45212. I would keep some of the tables in prose and use lede for answering the basic questions for an average reader unfamiliar with sport, as soon as possible, while the news is still fresh. Gryllida 21:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Watercooler discussion: Possible memorial fund?[edit]

Hi. I started a discussion on the English Wikinews water cooler at Memorial fund in Ashley-Nelson and Adrianne Wadewitz's honor?. I would really appreciate any feedback you could provide. --LauraHale (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Being bothered by User:Pi zero[edit]

He is bothering me with rubbish each edit. He is never contributing. He deletes articles comments sites here, although the article is existing. Articles under development are clean up articles. I might not write about RB Leipzig. My started articles have interest and he says that other archived articles are which from amateur clubs, university clubs or something else. He wants to rename my name here and is not rename me. My articles are written after the style such as about other proven football match reports. He is psychic unable to name reasons. Please remove him from the board! He neither productive nor socially competent or educated, for a globally representative on public free sites. --Nikebrand (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello!
  1. The rename worked.
  2. I checked the logs for 3 random deleted articles linked at your talk page, and their review comments were reasonable.
  3. Were you to require an review from a specific reviewer (such as me) for your future article, please leave them a talk page message immediately upon submitting it.
    That's something that normally doesn't happen — it happens from the pool of contributors and reviewers who are actively watching the Newsroom daily, which I haven't for a while — but I volunteer to take such requests out of the blue. It doesn't mean I would be able to satisfy such requests ahead of another reviewer, but I would try.
  4. Additionally, I've now enabled email notifications of new talk page messages.
--Gryllida 09:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

2015[edit]

Broken source links in the archives[edit]

One leaves the original url intact in the {{source}} template, and uses parameters brokenURL, archiveurl, and archivedescription, the last two of which were added to the template early last month after several months of discussion and deliberation. Detailed documentation at {{source/archived}}, including a link to list all articles that provide an archival link for a source. Atm, there's only one such article. --Pi zero (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

2016[edit]

Election results[edit]

The election committee should set up a page of the election results (see last year's, but the list is different this year), and certify the results at the water cooler thread. --Pi zero (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for handling this!! I've been swamped!! --Bddpaux (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

2017[edit]

British sexual assualt campaigner Jill Saward dies aged 51[edit]

Thank you for your advice. I will absolutely follow this structure for future articles.

I have amended the article as I see fit. Hopefully this meets the criteria.

Thanks Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have performed a next review, this time more in-depth, as remarked on your talk page. --Svetlana Tkachenko / Gryllida (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

I have sent you a wikinews e-mail just in case it ends up in junk or spam folder.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 14:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Agastya; I've got it and responded. (I am primarily offline during weekends, hence the delay with response.) --Svetlana Tkachenko / Gryllida (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I have sent another email.
acagastya 11:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Primitives[edit]

Just a thought. If we were to choose primitive tools for generality/flexibility, we'd want to have one tool for collecting the content of an arbitrary web page (without executing any javascript that it might have), and another tool for looking for similarities between two given texts. Collecting the content of an arbitrary web page can't (iirc) be done using JQuery without also executing whatever javascript it's got on it, and it's something we'd want to do not only when looking for possible distance problems, but also for most any sort of verification-aiding tool. Plus, separating the collection of page content from the analysis of page content should allow page content to be provided by other means such as cut-and-paste. --Pi zero (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017[edit]

Acagastya has suggested you for the election committee (here), as you did last year. Are you willing to serve? --Pi zero (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember I needed thorough hand-holding last year to accomplish the task, but if there are no other candidates, I would be willing to assist. --Gryllida (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Debian[edit]

Can we do it this week?
acagastya 12:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have sent you a mail.
acagastya 11:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Arb Comm decision...??[edit]

I suppose we need to wrap things up with the ArbComm election?? --Bddpaux (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: there are six slots -- and seven were nominated. In the decreasing order of number of votes received:
  1. Pi zero (7)
  2. Willian S. Saturn (6)
  3. Brian (5)
  4. RockerballAustralia (5)
  5. ShakataGaNai (5)
  6. Mikemoral (5)
  7. Gopher65 (4)

So, I don't think there is any ambiguity on who would be in the committee. Only the formalities need to be fulfilled.
acagastya PING ME! 18:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to do just that!! -Bddpaux (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I've verified the numbers; the first 6 candidates from this list appear to pass. --Gryllida (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Third person inner monologue is good for more than just sounding cool, say scientists[edit]

Hello, we have not met before, but you need to address this article which you have in preparation with an interview. The interviewee has left messages on the collaboration page, to which you have not responded. I am not here often, but when I see things like this, I am left disappointed. Please clarify the situation for both other editors as well as the interviewee. Thanks and cheers, --SVTCobra 06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello SVTCobra. Thank you for writing. It is a shame, I completely forgot to finish this. I will check my email archives for extra information as soon as possible. To make it easier for me to see what happened, could you please also tell me what is the interviewee nickname and where do I see their comments on the talk page of the article? --Gryllida (talk, chat) 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

2018[edit]

Categories to be created and populated[edit]

Warning: it is tedious, frustrating and boring task to find and compile list of all the articles that goes for a category. But it is better to do as soon as possible.

Note: create the category talk page, use {{fill this category}} template and list all the articles you think should have that category. See Category: Australian Open (Tennis) for example.

List of categories:

  1. Hamburg
  2. Köln
  3. Turin
  4. Luka Modrić
  5. Zinedine Zidane
  6. Kigali
  7. Naples
  8. Mozilla Firefox
  9. Iker Cassilas
  10. Tottenham Hotspur FC
  11. Aston Villa FC
  12. Bolton Wanderers FC
  13. Blackburn
  14. Blackburn Rovers FC
  15. Sunderland
  16. Sunderland AFC
  17. Fulham
  18. Fulham AFC
  19. Reading FC
  20. Birmingham City FC
  21. Birmingham
  22. Derby County
  23. Middlesbrough
  24. Middlesbrough FC
  25. Portsmouth FC
  26. Portsmouth
  27. Wolverhampton
  28. Wolverhampton FC
  29. Schalke 04
  30. Bromwich Albion
  31. Sheffield United FC
  32. Stoke City

Note that Hamburg (Hamburger SV), Köln (FC Köln), Naples (SSC Napoli), Turin (Juventus FC and F.C. Torino) are the cities these football clubs belong to. Let’s say F.C. Köln is playing CYZ team at home (scoreboard would have Köln on the left hand side), the match is played at F.C. Köln’s home, and it is sufficient condition for having Köln category for that article. Can you please compile the lists?
•–• 12:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not know these words, apart from 'Mozilla Firefox'. Created the list. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 22:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The vast majority are related to football clubs. But like I said, I don't think we need any of them. Pi zero on the other hand, envisages a day when Wikinews is so vast that it will be helpful for people perusing the archives. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews astronomers who discovered smallest known star[edit]

FYI, this interview preparation has been put up for deletion as abandoned. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Userified. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 22:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Debian closes FTP mirrors for download[edit]

Also marked abandoned. --Pi zero (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Userified. Gryllida (talk, chat) 22:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gryllida/js/addWikiLinks.js[edit]

May be something wrong somewhere. See Category:Articles with broken w templates. --Pi zero (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. --Gryllida (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Interacting with authors when working on articles[edit]

Hi Svetlana, I think it is great that you notify authors about your questions and suggestions, but I sincerely think it is best if we keep the discussions about articles on the article's collaboration page. You can use {{ping}} to notify the user. Talking to them on various user:talk pages makes it hard for everyone to follow. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not objecting to this in principle, but there are two drawbacks to this approach. Perhaps three.
  1. We need to get the message across quickly. Echo notifications require the user to click them for the notification to disappear. Many people won't do that and may miss them. A 'new user talk page message' notification does not have this disadvantage.
  2. Some new users do not know how to use an article talk page. (Only applies to newcomers who do not have experience editing a sister project.)
  3. Often majority of the work is done by the original author. The article talk page, if unsuccessful, eventually gets deleted, meaning the discussions are no longer available for review to use for writing future articles.
--Gryllida (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Note, messages left on a user talk page will not go away if the article is later abandoned and deleted. --Pi zero (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree on many points. If it is general Wikinews advice, sure, put in on the author's talk page. However, if it is article specific, I think it belongs on the article's page. You can leave a courtesy message on the author's talk page pointing them to the article's collaboration page in those instances. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

it is not always true that the majority of work is done by the primary author. Those things are best to be on article talk. And speaking of not seeing notifications/talk page: I know an enwp admin who would not see notifications/talk page messages on-wiki; but track them via email. as far as number of clicks is concerned, one extra click is not a lot of work for the one who is pinged.
•–• 01:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I didn't realize emails have the ability to mark notifications as read. Turns out they use a link with "?markasread=130393820" at the end. Thank you. Interesting API, I may be able to query it from a script. That addresses the concern partially (with the exception of the article talk pages getting deleted eventually). Once I write such script this already allows me to reduce the amount of communication on people' talk pages, so that I only provide them the writing tips while article content development stays on the article talk page. --Gryllida (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

67.236.139.78[edit]

Hi. I changed your block for this IP. We usually give IPs only a week, even for spamming. If they repeat offend, we will gradually increase the time, but we try to avoid permanent IP blocks. So if you are writing scripts for spam blocking, that may be something to consider. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This one was done by hand. Will remember what you said.
I have not yet completed a blocking script because it appears to need nested API queries (which are painful) unless mass delete extension gets an API. (phab:T35470)
--Gryllida (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Chrisnadeau1973[edit]

To be fair, that user added that malformed article to their user page in April 2017, so it probable was fresh back then. --SVTCobra 23:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, added. I guess I was not prepared to see a speedy deletion request that many months after the page creation. --Gryllida (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Localizing links and {{w}}[edit]

I noticed you localized a few links in the State of emergency in Sri Lanka fails to stop violence article, such as this. While there is nothing wrong with doing so, it is unnecessary work. {{w}} compensates for that. It will point to the Wikinews target first, and if none exists it will then go to Wikipedia. Let me demonstrate: [[w:Donald Trump|]] [[Donald Trump]] {{w|Donald Trump}} result in the following, Donald Trump Donald Trump Donald Trump. As you can see, {{w}} points to our local target. But when we don't have a local target {{w|Barron Trump}}, Barron Trump will point to Wikipedia. Cheers, --SVTCobra 09:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

<dropping in in the conversation> @SVTCobra: It can be even more complicated than that. Part of the concept of {{w}} is that writers can just link everything with {{w}} and not worry about it; and for my part, I don't try to localize such links until after full-protection archiving. Later, though, a local wikilink via {{w}} is meant to be a flag to article curators: the idea is to consider each such wikilink carefully to determine whether the article already belongs to the category target of the wikilink, and if not, should it belong. Once the decision to add or not-add the category is made, the {{w}} is converted to a hard local link, removing it from the list of such links waiting to be considered.

There is, thus, certainly no hurry about converting {{w}} calls to hard links, and one does want to consider each one carefully, but eventually one hopes to do them all. You can see the "queue" of such links at Category:Pages with categorizable local links. --Pi zero (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this detail here. It is important to be consistent with these things and I may be unaware of how this should be done.
I am trying to only remove links in which the target has only a tangential relevance to the article (names of news sources which reported the event, for example, while not participating in the event - there may be dozens of such articles already, but that does not mean they need to be added to the category) so that the category that Pi zero mentioned would no longer contain the story. --Gryllida (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Btw, Gryllida, do I recall rightly you added a line to your css to flag locally linked {{w}}s? There's a standard gadget like that; special changes, gadgets tab, just string-search for "green" (the gadget is listed as "underline in green categorizable {{w}} links", and is under User interface gadgets). That's why Darkfrog24 will sometimes produce an edit summary "darn you green underlining program" when localizing a {{w}} link. --Pi zero (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I don’t understand why one needs to waste time and effort for changing {{w}} to [[]]? Let us be while writing/reviewing or post publishing. It works fine, except for the pop-up tool which doesn’t consider any template. But honestly, I don’t see a point in changing those links, and I even reject those changes, if I am the first one to get to it. Besides, if someone manages to move the target page without a redirect, anyone reading that article would still find a working link before someone questions the move.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd just as soon writers didn't bother to replace {{w}} calls with hard links. It's simpler not to, and writers have other things they should be paying attention to, and eager use of hard links can make it more difficult for an article curator who wants to use {{w}} as a guide to possible categorization. Eventually — after full-protection, perhaps — curators do use local {{w}} links to suggest possible categories, and once a local link has been used that way, the notion was that the link should then be replaced with a hard link, thus removing it from the list of such links that have not yet been considered. That was the envisioned workflow for {{w}} links when the template was designed.

Imho rejecting such edits may come across as a bit heavy-handed; we want people to feel their edits are welcome. When reviewing such an edit, I would take a moment to consider the categorization question. --Pi zero (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll "localify {{W}} links and add categories" (simultaneously only) when the category is relevant. Seems there is no objection to that. (When not, I'll ignore them, as I dislike editing protected pages.) --Gryllida (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

More articles with broken w templates[edit]

--Pi zero (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't noticed; 1, 2. Fixed --Gryllida (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Grass fires hit Victoria, Australia and Sydney experiences hottest day in 78 years[edit]

Hi Gryllida. I hope you saw my comment about the graph on the hot day article. Also, I noticed that the sources had some overlap with regards to the wildfires and heat. Can they/should they be merged. Also, I think Cartman is retired from Wiki activities. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. I am going to spend some time looking at the above articles and try to review. Previously, I didn't have the time to look deep into the sources. If you have the time, maybe you can review Vladimir Putin wins fourth term as President of Russia, but be sure to look at my notes if you do so. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I personally regret but accept the merging. I reviewed the Putin article and think is isn't ready for publication as is (not NPOV because fading out any crtical aspect), but should be amended and published soon. I'd hope someone (you?) would also review the Czech Lit article waiting for review, which seems undisputed. --Gwyndon (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I did not understand the merging idea, sorry. :-( Please reword. Gryllida (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Review[edit]

I'm in the same boat, unfortunately. Big assignment due on Sunday, then another one next weekend, then a final the week after that. (It snuck up on me! I can't believe it's finals time already!) — Gopher65talk 05:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. :-)
What is your major?
Good luck with the assessments. Gryllida (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi grilida I'm busy right in Kansas city I'll do the survey another time I've gotta go I have someone waiting for me Tara walker (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

haveyoursay[edit]

I'm guessing you're not using the standard article creation forms — they all have {{haveyoursay}} build into their preload pages, and I seem to recall this isn't the first time recently I've noticed an article missing {{haveyoursay}}. --Pi zero (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll attempt to prioritise altering the flow to make this less likely to happen again. --Gryllida (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Also the {{date}} template.
150.129.88.45 (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"Internet and privacy issues" when contributing using an user account ?[edit]

Hello,

I'm here to ask clarifications about a statement you made in the discussion about deploying the new Watchlist. You state that,

We have one incredibly valuable contributor here who frequently edits as an IP due to Internet and privacy issues

How does contributing using an account have Internet and privacy concerns? I was thinking it was the other way round. - -Kaartic (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

They refuse to store cookies between browser restarts, and refuse to type the password to log in each time they would like to edit. This leads to them editing anonymously most of the time and not willing to change that. My (not really highly fruitful, alas) attempts at retrieving additional information may be found here. --Gryllida (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. Their hesitation to use an alternative less privileged account to overcome their problem seems unusual. Anyways, why do you fear of losing the user due to the new RC UI? What possible solution could help avoid the problem?
AFAICT, allowing IPs to opt-out of the new RC UI would not be an helpful solution for the person you're referring to as it would involve storing cookies.
- -Kaartic (talk) 06:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Instead of making new RC default and then allowing individuals for opting-out; make it opt-in for the interested users -- something I had mentioned on phab ages ago. On enwn, RC is not just a place to see normal recent changes, as it is also a place to see what were the effects of those edits in a time efficient way because news and time-frame are inseparable.
•–• 07:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to note that the new RC has already been made opt-out and when it was made deployed in the wikis few months ago. So, it's quite unlikely to change that into opt-in now. Let me know if you have any issues with the upcoming Watchlist deployment. Regardless, to know about the RC problem clearly I'm interested in knowing a few things:
  1. Why do you expect it to be opt-in rather than opt-out?
  2. What advantage does that offer to you over it's current behaviour? What problems does it solve?
Also, why do you think the new RC UI makes it hard for you to see the effects of the edits in a time efficient way?
Thanks, Kaartic (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Kaartic: In all fairness, I had said to make it opt-in months ago. There is not a single editor on this project who prefers the new RC UI -- it is pain in the ass. The way RC page was set up for enwn, all the important things anyone, let it be an admin or a total noob; they could find the all the important links and information without a single click. We had the important {{votings}} template on the top of the RC, which is now collapsed. The first thing anyone (newbie or experienced editor) does on any wiki project is to check the RC and that template made sure the articles under development, to be reviewed, under review, disputed and what not -- basically contains every crucial thing about the project, which is now minimised and nobody will know where to look for it. One should know what to look for before looking; and by collapsing it (which was one of the issues I had raised), we are losing the chance to provide newbies the way things work on enwn.
•–• 13:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I'm surprised you haven't noticed this yet. A solution was found for the collapsed {{votings}} template in the Water cooler discussion. Please visit the RC now and you would see that the template is not minimised.
Given that the template issue has been solved, Could you please elaborate on any other issues you face with the RC and why it was supposed to made opt-in? Also it would be nice if you could answer my earlier question of why do you think the new RC UI makes it hard for you to see the effects of the edits in a time efficient way?
Thanks, Kaartic (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
the point you are missing here is that any project should not be forced to drastically change the way they implement things just because of such design changes. I don't even know if it is weeks or months we had suffered because of it. I had stopped going to RC for that, monitoring votings separately.
•–• 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Acagastya: perhaps Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical#UI_questions may be interesting to you. Gryllida (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about the fact that you had to suffer due to the RC UI change for some time. Next time you face such an issue feel free to report that in the related project's talk page so that people could help solve your issue. If you find that difficult leave a message in my talk page describing the problem and I'll be sure to help, when possible! - -Kaartic (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Phab asks for the permission some of us are not ready to grant, but when I raised the concern, the answer was not helpful, and to be honest, I lost hope of getting any help.
•–• 19:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

whatlinkshere/api[edit]

User:Acagastya/admin-dash.js is opening Special:WhatLinksHere/API. Needs fixing. Gryllida (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Task: Importing script via api[edit]

"mw.loader.load('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?modules=ext.gadget.Navigation_popups');" Does not work. --Gryllida (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

chances of reviewing an article with five sources[edit]

I remember you saying that you do not review articles with four -- do you think you can manage a review with five? Today?
•–• 21:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)