User talk:Pi zero

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
I watch talk pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.
If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

Jan–May 2011
Jun–Dec 2011
Jan–Jun  2012
Jul –Dec 2012
Jan–Jul   2013
Aug–Nov 2013 
Dec 2013–Aug 2014          
Sep 2014–Jun  2015          
Jul –Oct  2015
Nov 2015–Jul   2016          
Aug 2016–Feb 2017          
Mar 2017–       2017          


deprecating wiki syntax as the primary input method[edit]

I just stumbled across a (now archived) comment you made on this page: From what I hear (I wasn't there, but I believe my source), a conscious —and staggeringly bad, imo— decision was made over a decade ago, to effectively deprecate wiki markup. Opportunities to improve wiki markup have been passed up. --Pi zero (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In case you were looking for it, here it is: It appears the first public posting was April 2011‎ by Eloquence. (Yeay Eloquence, sarcasm.)

The VisualEditor strategy plan, before the project was even named:

Rich-text editor: Technology to deprecate wiki syntax as the primary input method used to create content in Wikimedia projects

A few related points, which you may or may not be up-to-date on:

  • The WMF has decided to deprecate the current wikitext editor itself. They expect to move us all into the VisualEditor. But never fear! They have a plan! They've been building a wikitext mode inside of VE for us! Errm, well... it has a few problems... and a little tiny unimportant consensus against it. On large pages, VE has all of the nimbleness and performance of a beached whale. The last time I tried the "wikitext mode" to preview the United States article it took over 60 seconds. And because Flow was so hugely successful, they decided to steal one of the Flow's most super-duper most awesomest ideas! Since new "wikitext editor" is built inside VE, who needs real previews?! Just use VE itself for a simulated preview! The WMF has been pretty much ignoring the minor "consensus against it" detail, and they're very very slowly coasting the project forwards. They did figure out how to (at least partialy) fix the fake-preview problem. Simple: They want to change read-view of all pages to use the VE-rendering engine Parsoid.
    • Changing read-view to use the VE-rendering engine Parsoid would obviously break countless pages. So the WMF decided to declare certain perfectly-working wikitext to be "wikitext markup errors". They're asking volunteers to spend massive time "fixing" these "errors" on hundreds of thousands (or millions?) of pages... hoping we'll fix much of the Parsoid-breakage long before an eventual switchover.
  • As part of "deprecate wiki syntax as the primary input method", the WMF has been doing a stealth switchover of all wikis to "VisualEditor-primary", making VE the default editor for new users. Not only is the new default concealed from existing users, if you log out and create a new account a browser cookie for editing-mode will still effectively conceal the new default from you. The WMF deployed this on EnWiki, and after a rather ugly fight we wrote (but didn't deploy) a sitewide javascript hack to override it. Then the default was changed to Wikitext - for EnWiki only.
    • The WMF is moving very very slowly to roll out the new default everywhere. Let me know if you'd like to run an RFC on Wikinews or anywhere else to assert a local choice before this is rolled out. I can supply relevant links and details. Note: Any RFC on this should be styled as a "Wikitext-primary" or "VE-Primary" question, not a support/oppose proposal. A support/oppose style can invite poorly-reasoned anti-WMF supports as well as outright dysfunctional anti-anti-WMF opposes. A Wikitext-primary/VE-primary style better focuses discussion on the available options, and reduces the risk of an unhelpful no-consensus.
  • Less related, but noteworthy: In the last few days the WMF's efforts to promote Wikidata on other wikis damn near crashed Commons and several Wikipedias. (Wikis that most heavily used wikidata were most seriously affected.) A database admin jumped into bad-ass mode, grin. They chewed out the wikidata people for nearly "breaking Wikipedia", and announced he was unilaterally taking charge of the situation and rolling back the feature as an emergency action.[1]

For the last six and a half years this visual-tail has been wagging the wiki-dog. The WMF consistently ignores or neglects core wikitext infrastructure because they're too busy chasing visual butterflies. For example one of the big Community-tech projects we asked for was to improve a variety of cases of awful diffs, such as moved paragraphs. The WMF rated it as a high-community-support high-impact project, then dropped work on it to go build a visual-butterflies visual-diff instead. Alsee (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee: I'd have to reconsult my source to be sure, but I think they said they'd heard Erik Möller (Eloquence) express the essence of the deprecate-wiki-markup concept in a remark in... 2004? --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
(Implying that deprecating wiki markup has been the Foundation's de facto agenda for as long as the Foundation has existed.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Ping me if come up with more info. Alsee (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alsee: Alas, no luck here. The person I remember remarking on this has told me the other person involved wasn't Eloquence, but I didn't get a chance at the time to clarify what was said, and wouldn't be comfortable approaching them again, atm. --Pi zero (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Francisco Leandro[edit]

Please delete my user page. It will be replaced by Meta's global page. Thanks. --Francisco (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Done. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete page to complete the renaming process[edit]

Hello, Can you please delete this page (User talk:مصطفى الاكادورى)? because I wanna complete the usurpation process (i.e I forgot to suppress creation of redirects). Thanks علاء (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks علاء (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?[edit]

No problem on this end. No more articles. News is news no matter who writs it. Just ask Breibart, or Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch or any of the sources of news that Wikinews cannot come close to competing with. As long as its honest, and truthful and not written for personal gain how can there be a conflict of interest in trying to get a story about governmental corruption out to the public? In reality its Wikinews who has the conflict of interest. I migh just be able to come up with some facts that indicate this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Codeforepub (talkcontribs)

Why even argue, when that article (the second one) was not even newsw?
acagastya PING ME! 16:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
One suspects that's a typo for "Breitbart". I feel truly sorry for someone who has somehow failed to recognize that Breitbart and its ilk are neither honest nor truthful; but I don't know how to help such a person find their way. --Pi zero (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Lupin's famous navigational pop-ups.[edit]

Is this working for you? It isn't working even when I added the script in my vector.js Is it broken? (But that works on Wikipedia.)
acagastya PING ME! 03:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you are disconnected from IRC.
acagastya PING ME! 14:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, my laptop crashed. I'm in the process of getting things set up again; back on IRC soon. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Although I've seen the gadget mentioned in our site configuration, I've never used it and don't really know what it does. --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you want to try it?
acagastya PING ME! 06:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You might want to save this link[edit]

Why we should not rely on machine translation.
acagastya PING ME! 11:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Oy vey.

The truly sad part is at the end of the article — he took down the post. --Pi zero (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you know[edit]

I am planning to attend a Comic Con in Bangalore on December 2. I have never been to one, and I always wanted to write about it. I could see the archives to get some idea, which I would have to, but I wanted someone to share their first hand experience. I have emailed Bddpaux and Zanimum about it. But I want to know, what are some of the things I should remember for reporting about it? What are required elements, or important things for a Comic Con article? And what are the problems you would generally face while reviewing a Comic Con. Any tips or advice? Also to let you know, my semester end exam is on December 4, so I need to prepare a draft as soon as possible.
acagastya PING ME! 07:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Some categorisation work[edit]

  1. Category talk:Dani Alves
  2. Category talk:Wayne Rooney
  3. Category talk:Diego Costa
  4. Category talk:Everton FC
  5. Category talk:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg
  6. Category talk:AZ Alkmaar

acagastya PING ME! 07:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the best way is to create the category page, dump the list of the articles on its talk, and list that category on Wikinews:Categories and topic pages/Pending‎. Sounds good?
acagastya PING ME! 11:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I would suggest using {{editprotected}} on a list like that. That template is meant to draw the attention of the very people whose attention one wants to draw to the list. --Pi zero (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Quotation on your talk page[edit]

I saw "He writes the words "Who What Where When Why and How" on the blackboard. Then he dictates a set of facts to us [...] We turn in our leads. We're very proud. Mr. Sims looks at what we've done and then tosses everything into the garbage. He says, "The lead to the story is 'There will be no school Thursday.' "" on the top, just now, but due to text shadow, it is difficult to read. Could be due to the blur radius you have used (2px), or because of the typeface (mine shows Comic Sans on Windows, and I assume Chalkboard on iOS, and many people hate those fonts) Try to tweak the shadow (that is the third one `2px 1px 2px #888888`), either 0 or something greater than 5px. It isn't the best thing to fix right now, but it shouldn't take much time. (Also, I think you should archive some comments)
acagastya PING ME! 08:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you changed it, but the typeface looks beautiful on iPad. (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I haven't gotten around to changing it. --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Is there a way to generate a list of articles flagged abandoned and they are supposed to be deleted (meaning it has been there for more than 48 hours)
acagastya PING ME! 07:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. We might be able to craft some well-chosen augmentation of dialog's query abilities that would allow it to do that. I would want to think that through very carefully because there are other kinds of enhanced DPL I'd want dialog to be able to do, and we'd want to craft an augmentation for maximum general utility. --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I assume there is no way of knowing list of pages using a file (say) ABC, if it was deleted from Commons, can we?
acagastya PING ME! 12:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
There used to be a bot on Commons, operated by User:Fæ, that notified when an image used on any Wikinews was nominated for deletion. I used to follow that as a way of at least knowing when such deletions happened, and had always figured eventually I should teach myself basic procedure for rescuing such pages before they were actually deleted (rather than simply knowing to add {{missing image}} when they went away, though even knowing when to do that was great). However, the bot broke sometime last year iirc. --Pi zero (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreviewed paged[edit]

What to do about UnreviewedPages?
acagastya PING ME! 07:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Lots and lots of pages from before review era (BRE?) are unreviewed. Just on a quick check I counted at least 5000 there; I wouldn't be surprised if there were twice that or more. We have never had a clear policy, or even a systematic practice, on grounds to sight ancient unreviewed articles. I think BRS has thought a bit about this; I recall once or twice seeing xem sight such articles, though I wasn't sure what criterion xe had in mind for doing it. But in itself I don't think unreview represents a variety of to-do list. Unfortunately, DPLs can't combine with special pages (part of the general gross underpowering of DPLs), so we can't easily produce a list of pages that are unreviewed, published, and fully protected; that's another case we might consider when trying to craft a suitable augmentation for dialog. --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
So, it is pointless to review it now, right?
18:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Football clubs[edit]

So I was dealing with Category:Wigan Athletic F.C. when I realised we have added the categories of football leagues to clubs. However, it is possible a club would be relegated. Like for example -- Aston Villa. We do not have its category at the moment but we have enough articles for a category. So should we change football leagues to the countries they represent? Another thing to note -- there are some clubs like AS Monaco (from Monaco) who plays in the French league. Thoughts?
acagastya PING ME! 11:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

In the case of AS Monaco, one might argue it would appropriate to add it to both categories Monaco and France.

As I recall, we had discussed the possibility of categorizing an individual player under all the teams they have played for, so that when they move to a new team, the old team category stays and the new one gets added; we might do the same thing when a team moves to a different league, keeping the old league category and adding the new. --Pi zero (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

We hardly cover news from lower division leagues. Besides these are two different things. That was "players played for club X". For leagues, it can be misleading.
acagastya PING ME! 13:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Perhaps, then, we'd be better off not categorizing teams per league? --Pi zero (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, whatever we do, let's make sure that if one day, we plan to revert to bringing back the leagues, when we can manage those things more efficiently, that does not become too difficult to handle.
•–• 17:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
also, could you tell me, how do you finish a fill this category task? I think I can help minimise admin’s time required for it.
•–• 20:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Things visible to reviewers[edit]

When we have reviewer bits, we can see that box to accept or reject changes. I had noticed there was a CSS class specifying "reviewers-only" on Wikibooks. I am not sure if that is how it works, but can't we implement admin dashboard in that manner? (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There are things in the skins that are visible only to admins; likely one could learn how to do that in css by studying the skins. I think there's also a magic word, which would provide the information at a different level. --Pi zero (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Have you thought about…[edit]

…wikifying and categorising archived articles that were published on that day? Assuming we have 22k articles, we would have to deal with 60 articles a day and even if we spend just a minute, it would take one hour. That is a lot of work.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 02:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

now that I have mentioned it, can dialog tools handle date categories?
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 02:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Agastya: I envision a tool vaguely similar to HotCat, that would convert hard wikipedia links [[w:...]] to use {{w}}, then would find all {{w}} links that have local targets, and examine each one to determine whether it goes to a category that's already on the article (in which case it should offer to make make it a hard local link), goes to a category that's not already on the article (offer to add the category, and then, as a separate decision, offer to make it hard local link), or goes to a disambig (offer to refine the target, and then recurse on the refined link).

I've concluded there's a significant mental burden associated with having to make lots of tedious little decisions, and just relieving the user of those might be much more important than just how quickly it's done (within reason). --Pi zero (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ask to re-review an article[edit]

Hello sir, A long time ago I have been updated and adjusted an article. However it is not reviewed. Can you check please the news for conformity to parameters? sovomimocd 18.40, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Sovomimocd (talk) 16:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sovomimocd: Hello. I am aware of the article. While actual review is a major undertaking, so that my opportunities to do reviews are less frequent, I do track the review queue. Hopefully (unless something goes wrong irl, which is always possible), I will have an opportunity to review your article in a few hours. --Pi zero (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Hello sir, thank you for your answer. Can I ask a quesion? Do this article still have chance to be published, when all the updates of an article will be done? --Sovomimocd (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Sovomimocd: Unfortunately, I don't see how it can. We would need a more recent development, and since the marathon has already ended, that seems unlikely. --Pi zero (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Sir, I did changes in article (upgraded) some details which you recommend to do. Can you check please the news for conformity the parameters? How I can do it better if need to do it?

Also question about timeline? I did an article the day next after event, because use the new source which found at the same day. It means that my article was created in time. And I only waited more days that somebody will review it. In this reason possible that the article in the end will be published? When I say "published", I means that this article will be in history of Wikinews in the day November 5, 2017 - the day when it was created... Sincerely, --User:Sovomimocd (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Interpersonal conflicts[edit]

You don't have to get involved. You're not in the way. Your involvement has largely been helpful so far, to diffuse things, but it is absolutely not your job to fix the problems between Acagastya and me and I have been making a conscious effort not to put you in the middle. I don't see Acagastya trying to drag you in either, so bully for him. I don't mind, not at all, but I'm saying right here that it's not your job and you don't have to. Talk when you feel like talking. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Please re-check the news[edit]

@Pi zero: Sir, I did changes in article (upgraded) some details which you recommend to do. Can you check please the news for conformity the parameters? How I can do it better if need to do it? Also question about timeline? I did an article the day next after event, because use the new source which found at the same day. It means that my article was created in time. And I only waited more days that somebody will review it. In this reason possible that the article in the end will be published? When I say "published", I means that this article will be in history of Wikinews in the day November 5, 2017 - the day when it was created... Sincerely, --Sovomimocd (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Sovomimocd (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sovomimocd: The markup you want, in order to ping me, is like this: {{ping|Pi zero}}
When we publish an article, the date that appears on the article is the date on which we publish it, rather than the date that it was first written. We measure freshness at the moment of publication, too. I hope to take a look at what you've done, and offer feedback to you. And you were absolutely correct, at the time, to choose the end of the conference as a focal event, giving reviewers as much time as possible in which to review it. Unfortunately, no volunteer reviewer got to it soon enough. --Pi zero (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: thank you sir. Will be wait on your recommends and advices. Sovomimocd (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


Is it possible to obtain the number of pages with pending changes for voting/admin dashboard template?
18:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. We have the pieces; I'm trying to cobble something together. We have Special:PendingChanges, which when transcluded is a list. And we have {{evalx}} with which to measure the length of the list. --Pi zero (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Nope. It doesn't work. This is, bluntly, because the Foundation deliberately treats wiki markup as a kludge to be discarded casually rather than an asset to be nurtured as a design priority. Special:PendingChanges doesn't provide data at the wiki markup level; at template expansion time it provides a string that is substituted for later. To see this,
{{evalx|(list (get-arg 2))|{{Special:PendingChanges}}}}
( "'""`UNIQ--item-15--QINU`""'" )
--Pi zero (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


Speedy deletion requests: 1  Pages to be protected: 14  Categories to be populated: 3  flagged pages: 8  Abandoned pages: 3  Pages to be wikified: 12  Protected pages to be renamed: 2 

Unused fair-use files: 30  Files on Commons: 17  Pages to sight: 1  Add categories: 0  Remove categories: 0  Refresh
Looks good? At least eleven more are to be added. Otherwise it would have been one line cute dashboard for the admins.
20:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like quite an elaborate interface. I'm worried that anything with this complicated a dashboard is likely to be too complicated to use at the request end of things; eventually I would hope to have dialog-based semi-automation to help, maybe, but for now it seems likely you will be the only user able to figure out how to make requests that show up on the envisioned dashboard. --Pi zero (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It is not that difficult. For example, if there is a page marked for deletion, {{delete}} would add Category: Speedy deletion to that page, and it appears in the category. In this template, there is an element "Speedy deletion requests", which is linked to that category which contains list of all the pages to be deleted. Just like how {{review}} works.
People might not know about the new templates (so in roygbiv, it will be):
You would get to know once you try it (if you try, because you have admin rights, and you don't need to request anyone else) Consider it like how editprotected works. Those marked with ** are the new ones, and one needs to explain why to perform those edits.
05:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Um, how about we try it later today? We will deal with one page in each category. Okay?
06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of them are subsets of editprotected. For example, {{add category}}. It specifies what type of edit is requested for a protected page. (By the way, I realised why editprotected can never be replaced completely -- something we were discussing few days ago)
07:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Heh. I think you're underestimating the difficulty of keeping track of all these. (I notice in your example you refer to another one that wasn't on your earlier list.) There are a whole lot of templates for noting problems with articles, you know, dating afaik from the earliest days of the project, long before review. In recent years they tended to be used only by some oldtimers, such as brianmc, who were familiar with them. Things moved toward {{cleanup}}, then (I think) toward {{tasks}} which has, or had, a complicated interface that people weren't expected to apply by hand, mostly, it would mostly be set up by the review gadget, and now even that doesn't get displayed, it just refers you to the review template on the talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Category rename[edit]

Just now, I checked Category:FC Barcelona can be moved. (Category:Published can be moved too) If someone moves that page, and breaks the redirect, won't that result in serious complications?
•–• 07:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it would temporarily mess things up a bit. Generally we haven't gone in for blanket protections just because somebody might vandalize a page; there ought to be some reason the damage would be especially egregious, so that it would be insufficient to fix the damage after it happens. --Pi zero (talk)


You might have noticed I had added categories to Category:Dani Alves before it was populated and revision was accepted. But because of that, Category:Dani Alves appeared in Brazil and PSG's category. I could have commented it, and added it once it was populated, but I want to know if it is possible to display subcategories only if they are sighted?
•–• 17:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Nope. The Foundation couldn't care less about us, so the fact that would be vastly more useful to us, and not having it interferes with our operations, is irrelevant next to it not fitting with the technical priorities they imagine will promote the agenda they imagine will, in turn, promote their (unintentionally volunteer-unfriendly) vision for Wikipedia. --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
What do you suggest? I should comment the categories so that I do not make Wikinews look "ugly"? (I should add a note on talk page that categories were commented, please uncomment it and accept the revision.)
•–• 18:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I suggesting going ahead with adding parent categories to new categories that haven't been populated yet. It's not going to lead a lot of people to the new category; not nearly as much as creating a mainspace redirect would. --Pi zero (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


Is it neutral to use this word? Can it be replaced with far-right? I don't think using a word which suggests that we are making the call something was "extreme" should be avoided.
•–• 20:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: "Fascist" has a specific technical meaning. Whether it's appropriate to the case, I haven't studied. --Pi zero (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rancho Tehama shootings[edit]

Thanks again, and I'm learning a lot, esp. about what Wikinews means by neutrality. CNN did have the deliberate collision: "also gunning down someone after he purposely crashed into another car". And it was multiple shootings in different locations, so shouldn't it be moved again, to "shootings" or "series of shootings"? Yngvadottir (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Our use of 'deliberately' would require a great deal of scrutiny, at best. Anything that comes close to people's intentions can be tricky, and that on top of trying to even know what actually happened (which often calls for us to report the evidence for what happened rather than asserting as objective fact that it did happen). Even with a source saying he did it 'purposely', the question that springs to mind is, how do they know? Perhaps it's based on a witness account of the incident? If so, we'd probably want to report the evidence rather than assert the intention as fact, which of course would be wordier.
  • I agree it would have been plausible to use 'shootings' in the headline; I'll suggest, though, that 'shooting' works too. 'A shooting' can be an incident with multiple shots fired. This might be called 'shootings at multiple locations', but it also seems to me plausible to call it 'a multi-location shooting' since there was evidently just one shooter.
I tried to provide helpful feedback in my review comments. Thank you for writing the piece. --Pi zero (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Haaretz; The New York Times[edit]

(Did not know if I should ask you or at WN:WC/misc) These publishers often paywall their content. I need to clear cache, use VPN or access from another device whenever I need to view the content. Should we really use those as source/encourage its usage? I am really against using them as source. Considering there are very few reliable Israeli news source in English (JPost, Times of Israel), I still do not think we should encourage paywalled websites. WHat do you suggest?
•–• 13:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: We have an explicit policy that says no pay-to-read sources. I've not dealt with Haartez much lately, so have no remarks on that off hand. I used to be quite aggressive about not-readying for use of NYT sources but doing so created a mess because (1) alternative sources of information almost never really cover all the facts used from the paywalled source, often they're not even close, and of course for reviewers each fact not in the sources creates massive extra work; and (2) risk of copyvio is not decreased by introducing alternative sources. The NYT paywall is, in fact, absurdly easy to get around, and I got so tired of the messes created by rejecting NYT sources that I got lazier and lazier about objecting to NYT. But I should be routinely at least objecting to NYT sources and warning not to continue using them, if not rejecting them outright. --Pi zero (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
If we publish an article which uses paywall source, and there was a serious mistake in it, and the source has paywalled the content strictly, what would we do? As a reviewer, I can not-ready an article if I can not access the source(s), at that time, if the reporter says to follow some steps to access the content, should I do that? (We have done this in past -- remember for UEFA Euro 2016, you could not see the FIFA content in English, so I asked you to switch to French -- though I asked you to replace the source, of-wiki, and said, if you face this problem again, language change would work.)
•–• 16:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: We should not be publishing an article with a paywalled source. We really should not be bypassing a paywall to access a source, as that source is evidently using that paywall as part of their economic livelihood and we should respect their desire to not make their material accessible to us. But, when it comes to marginal cases, well, all details of the situation may matter to how we handle a particular case. One way or another, we must have access to all the sources in order to review. --Pi zero (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
So, you using French version of FIFA website for verifying what happened in a football match if the English version is not working is okay? After all, they are not paywalled, and it is probably due to JS/cookie policy. [We never figured that out, did we?] Though that should not happen ideally.
•–• 16:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


I've been pinged about this one. Looks to have the same support as the prior approved accreditation. And, the user in question is interested in attending a ComicCon for Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Brian McNeil: I voted in support yesterday. The last one had four supports and a fifth user (me) who closed (without objecting). I'm willing to close it, but admittedly that won't be quite the same as the previous four-plus-separate-closer-who-didn't-object. --Pi zero (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:March 1[edit]

Aren't the interwikis done via Wikidata now? Same display result in this instance. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: There is a long discussion about it on my talk. But if you are looking for a TL;DR: even if wikidata maintains IW links, we don't remove which we have added manually.
•–• 16:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Acagastya: that does explain it, thanks. The one disadvantage that I don't see mentioned is, when the article on another project gets moved, or even deleted, and obviously it's all the harder to keep up with such changes when one doesn't read the other language (none of us read them all). But ok, another thing I'll try to remember (my memory isn't what it was). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: Sorry, what? How is that a problem? As far as I know, news articles are rarely renamed/deleted once published. It is a different think about what happens for project pages, but sooner or later, it gets fixed [in theory].
•–• 16:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir, Acagastya: There is a technical problem with detecting a discrepancy between local interwikis and wikidata interwikis. My long-range plans call for a dialog-based assistant that would compare the two, aid the user in considering what out to be done about it, and aid the user in acting on their decision. There are three main possibilities:
  • The discrepancy may be one in which the wikidata version is more up-to-date and the local interwiki ought to be adjusted accordingly.
  • The discrepancy may be one in which the wikidata version has gotten corrupted and ought to be updated with the local information. (It's even possible that the wikidata version changed "correctly" because things got corrupted at another local project, as with page-move vandalism, so that a fix should be applied on the other local project.)
  • There might be a good reason why the two should not be the same, in which case the assistant ought to be able to tell the current user why past users have chosen to let the discrepancy stand. This can get even more complicated as there may be some circumstances under which the exception should be reconsidered. It's really important, though, when setting up a system to deal with discrepancies like this, to set it up so that it doesn't just keep hounding users about it until somebody changes things to resolve the discrepancy; without a way of tracking reasons for allowing exceptions, and preventing active discrepancy-warnings from constantly popping up, the exceptions aren't really supported.
--Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
At least for news articles, it is impossible (in theory) to mess up. For others, a py bot could inform if the target is dead end -- but for incorrect pages, we can not do anything. Same is true if a vandal adds incorrect information on Wikidata.
•–• 18:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Time magazine refutes Donald Trump's claim on Twitter that he was nominated 'Person of the Year'[edit]

I changed the title of the article to hopefully better reflect what it is about, and I also tried to address your review comments. (Iuio (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC))

Thanks for your work on reviewing the article. I just wanted to point out that the bit where Time magazine requested the removal of fake magazine covers from Trump's resorts, which you removed because you said you didn't find mention of, came from the CNN source, quoted as "Last summer, TIME asked for the fake magazines to be removed after reports surfaced that at least five of Trump's golf clubs featured the fakes bearing his photo." Hope that clears the matter up. (Iuio (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC))

Emailed you about Pidgin[edit]

The screenshots are on Google Drive, and I have emailed you the steps.
•–• 06:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


You must have the patience of a divine being. I don't know how you do it. I did a little dirty work while you sleep (I presume). Cheers, --SVTCobra 07:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

Kind of "busy" schedule in real life. I would be travelling for most of the week. Expect me on the project after ten days. However, UEFA Champions League Last 16 draw would take place tomorrow -- There is already a prepared story. Hope we can get it on time.
•–• 13:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

after reading this I think I am finally taking some interest in the conflict which can cause on wiki problems like CoI and neutrality. This is scary on and off wiki. Please let me know if you can sense that in my articles. (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Which aspect — what Turkey's being doing, or what Israel's been doing, or what Israel and Turkey have been saying about each other, or what Trump has done to create conflict? (I recall hearing, several years ago, that one of the beliefs of the US fundamentalist religious right fringe advocates strengthening Israel in order to bring about Armageddon and the Second Coming.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe I was up too late and needed some sleep.
•–• 22:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me?[edit]

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) 23:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Gartmund: I'm frustrated I wasn't able to get to this sooner. You are quite right that we have limited time left. I have tried to write helpful review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Pi zero: Thank you. I took your recommendations into account. I ask you to check once again my news -Gartmund (talk) 11:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

re review my article![edit]

go and review my article. Take it to the eventual stage! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idnamesay (talkcontribs) 03:06, 17 December 2017‎ (UTC)

In fact, I've done so. It's very late where I am, so I don't expect to do more review tonight. --Pi zero (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

re review my article![edit]

well, you should go back an re-review my article! You should pass it to the end stage!

It is logical...[edit]

... that people no longer fancy working on an article which cannot be published anymore according to the rules here, having become stale. So the only thing you can actually do is simply throw every article away after 3-4 days if it has not been approved by the reviewers here by then. If you really think that will help to improve this project (honestly, I think just the opposite thing). De Wikischim (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Stale articles can not be published. They are not “new” to be news. You can not have it on the project. Imagine getting a hundred articles written each day on your home wiki. And most of them have certain issues. What would you do? Just ina few weeks you would see that happen here. (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, what would be wrong about that? On other news sites, you can find all kinds of (very) old news items back too. They are saved not only to keep the the archive complete, but as well because some older news facts may still be important for the actuality. In my opinion, nothing is wrong with that, as long as the news as such can be considered "real" news and is sufficiently verifiable. De Wikischim (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Who said that we delete our archives? Only published articles with {{publish}} tag, and sighted by a reviewer can be archived. Consider it like this, Netherlands failed to qualify for UEFA Euro 2016. You might have seen it on NOS when it happened. They will have it in archives, but they would not have written it today -- you can not see the articles under development for a professional news org, so you don't understand the process and what is the meaning of {{develop}} or {{publish}}. (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Our archives are a tremendous asset to the project and to the sisterhood. They are an archive of published articles; successfully captured quality snapshots in time. Nobody here is in disagreement with the proposition that we need to speed up review; the question has always been whether to speed it up by lowering standards or by improving efficiency of review. Lowering standards was tried by a fork, and (unsurprisingly, to me) failed. I've been pursuing a plan for how to improve efficiency, but with zero (or less than zero) support from the Foundation, it's unsurprisingly taking a while. --Pi zero (talk) 13:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


Hello, pizero. Just read your mail -- I am really sorry I did not ask clearly. I wanted to know how can I help you make those tools. [OBTW, I have reached home, but I don't think I would be able to write anything before January 5]
•–• 08:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I did wonder if that was what you meant. --Pi zero (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick help[edit]

Long story short -- I was reading about a story, but did not start writing in journal -- did I disqualify myself (another editor wrote the story from scratch)? I don't think I did, but just want to be sure.
•–• 06:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I am reviewing the article. But as always, I will have something to add. And I was wondering if I could ask anyone to sight it but then, it is Christmas and I assume any reviewer or admin would be offline. I never thought about this, but maybe we don't have any non-Christians with special rights [except for me -- I am ignoring atheists, because come on! If theists can be treated in a hospital, why can't atheists take a day off and spend time with family on Christmas? -- I hope we don't have to face vandals today, Dec25 will be the other day to be extra-vigilant after Jul4], do we?
In my judgement, as evidently in yours, your own knowledge or study of the subject does not in itself disqualify you; you'd have to contribute to the article that's a candidate for review, or —in a different dimension— have an opinion about it so strong as to interfere with your ability to make neutral judgements. Though one does, I think, have to be a bit more careful not to mix up what one verified from the cited sources from what one read elsewhere. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
It was only one source, and I guess the overall content was the same -- I haven't mixed up [to the best of my knowledge]. Don't forget to sight.
•–• 15:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
note that someone should sight the edits from this difference.
•–• 15:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

User Space[edit]

I now think I know where Ottawahitech gets the idea that failed articles can be moved into user-space. Please see the 'optional' parameter at Template:Abandoned. This should be updated for current practices/policies. Cheers and Happy New Year, --SVTCobra 02:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: True, making the parameter less inviting would probably be helpful.

It's a wonderful thing to see the review queue cleared; three active reviewers in a day makes quite a difference. Happy New Year, yourself. --Pi zero (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how to redesign templates, but 'less inviting' should be a minimum, don't you think? Perhaps it should be removed as an option. And, yes, I saw the queue at 4 and thought to myself: "wouldn't it be nice if Wikinews could start 2018 with a clean slate" so I did some work. However, I did also add a DR to the list of tasks ;) but I think that's an easy one.
Speaking of working for Wiknews, I added our article on George Weah to Wikipedia. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: In situations where userspacing is the appropriate measure — mainly for OR — it seemed desirable to be able to keep track of the intended measure, so that someone taking action later could be reminded of it, rather than putting all the burden of figuring these things out on the deleting admin. --Pi zero (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. But the way it reads now, it is like an automatic move to user space. And who is going to tag an OR piece as abandoned? I think only Admins. But who can be sure? But I am going to add a topic to your talk page, just below. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

What Really Happened with the Hamilton High School Football Program[edit]

This is a vast, sprawling, article. Do you have it under control? It is certainly news, nothing outside our scope. But it is so vast, I don't know how anybody could review it. And I wouldn't want to be the person to delete this passionate project. What I mean to say is, I know this is a real case. I am not suggesting it is a hoax, far from it. It is obviously real, but we don't have the 'staff' to verify. Back in 'my day' when I was very active, Brian McNeil was almost the face of Wikinews. He had a way of contacting legal council from Wikimedia Foundation. I'm sorry, but this shit scares me. I will, nonetheless, wish you a happy 2018. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Duh! I forgot to say why! I see that the article has a 'sandbox' tag on it. The reason I found it however is that it shows up in "Undisputed" in the Newsroom. How is that possible? There's no 'develop' tag. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I have a proposal, on which I invite your opinion. I've been quite concerned about that page, but have had trouble finding time to formulate a course of action (partly because of the review queue). The author claims it's a repository of material from which to excerpt bits needed for particular articles both here and on Wikipedia, and in particular says xe's going to draw material from it for an article in January, but while xe has made a few attempts, xe has thus far not produced an article that could pass review. I think I should require the author to store the material off-wiki instead of in this "sandbox", until such time as they draw on it to produce an actual article (which would then be subject to review for neutrality etc. within a reasonably short timeframe). Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
There is too much for me too really look at closely. However, there appears to be tables of student names; lots of them. And since it is US High School it is the age they go from legally children to adults. I do not have time to parse this information. I do not have time to see if the lists are victims or alleged perpetrators. Either way, I see it as a huge liability. Maybe I am wrong and they are all named in the sources.
If you seek my advice, I suggest the author keep it to initials for the underage people, or even invent their own code number (off-wiki / off-internet) for each individual until such time as writing a Wikinews article on the subject.
I don't know what else to say. Cheers,--SVTCobra 05:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I think... maybe... those aren't student names. I'm still quite uncomfortable with the names, of which there are indeed quite a lot, and it would take a tremendous amount of study just to figure out whether all the names are okay to be using in a news article in this context — and it's not a news article, and consequently not being submitted for review, and as you point out it's so big we really wouldn't be able to review it. But I'm not sure there are a lot of student names in it (unless I missed them). At any rate, I've deleted it until such time as we may be willing to briefly undelete it so the author can copy it to some (by recommendation, private) off-wiki storage location. --Pi zero (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I added my own comment and tried to take as much responsibility for the decision as I could. Obviously, we can make the source links available the writer or even anybody. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: and @Pi zero:, Please undelete the article for 24 hours so I may retain the formatting. For the record, the wikipedia guys contacted me because of the cross-referenced information, but removed myself from their actions. Still do not know where the undisputed part came up, I did not know that was changed. If it is possible to keep the disputed/sandboxed page, I would happily see to all the names. I was very careful to put in the disclaimer saying it was illegal to publish names of minors and victims of sexual crimes - thus all the Doe names. {{subst:unsinged|17:26, 31 December 2017‎|AZOperator}}

@AZOperator: Temporarily undeleted, will re-delete in about a day. I'd really rather not have a great big pile of unreviewed material like that hosted on-site for a prolonged period (on, after all, a pretty sensitive topic, as you are aware). --Pi zero (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Pi, I had already restored the contents to User:AZOperator/Sandbox. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Evidently the reporter is done with the page, so I've re-deleted it. (It looks, from their last edit to the page, as if they've got some serious misunderstandings about the situation, but there comes a point where they have to decide to take responsibility for learning how Wikinews works; we can't force anyone to want to learn.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't forget the sandbox I created for AZOperator. How long should that stay up? Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Saw this message today[edit]

Templates/files updated (unreviewed pages in bold): Template:InfosectionEnd, File:USA orthographic.svg, File:Flag of the United States.svg.
•–• 07:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


You apparently use the argument that articles are "abandoned" as a justification to throw them away. However, it's most of the time only you who judges the articles as not ready for publication (as a synonym for abandoned), so this criterium is highly subjective. Furthermore, it is just one thing that you do not want them to be published on the main page, but why must all those articles which have remained unpublished by definition be thrown away without being kept in an archive? I'm very sorry to say it, but in my opinion you're ruining this project from the inside by doing so. I think the English Wikinews will face a real risk of closure if the policy here does not change. De Wikischim (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I try to be friendly and helpful to everyone who comes to this project, but the effort is rather futile with those who (a) don't want to be friendly and/or (b) don't want to learn. We are here to publish news. You seem to think we should blog about past events. It isn't apparent to me that you have sought to learn about this project with an open mind; honestly, it seems as if, when presented with anything that doesn't match your prior expectations, your impulse is not to study it but to complain about it. I would very much like for that to be an unnecessarily harsh assessment. --Pi zero (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, whatever you wish to think about me is completely up to yourself, of course. For the rest, in my opinion you should at least try to take my comment hereabove serious. Believe me when I say I made them with good intentions (i.e. for the sake of this project's future). )De Wikischim (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me for butting in here, but I have a few things to say. I sincerely believe that Pi Zero is the only reason the project isn't completely dead. I do not for a second believe that he wants to see articles discarded. When he reviews articles, he gives long explanations for what needs to be improved. A lot of times, people drop in, start an article, give a malformatted source (or two) and expect Wikinews to magically finish and publish the article. If Pi Zero did all the rewriting and tracking of more sources, who would be there to review his work? Back when I was more active, we had a much larger active user base, and still we only managed to publish 5-6 articles per day.
As for your suggestion to archive articles which never passed review, well, quite frankly, that seems ludicrous. They could potentially contain copyright infringements, factual inaccuracies, propaganda and/or spam. The only thing that can save Wikinews is an influx of new users with an interest in NPOV journalism. In today's world, however, it seems those interested in citizen journalism prefer to have complete editorial control themselves, so they blog or vlog about the news.
Wikinews needs the people who started articles to show some conviction and effort; they need to come back and make the changes/improvements as suggested in the review. To levy your criticism of Wikinews at Pi Zero is, in my opinion, completely unfair. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I'm hoping we can become an exporter of the meme of NPOV journalism. I think there would be enough folks to grow the project if we could just get things working more easily; note that however much review we can provide, these days, demand on the review queue responds by increasing until it exceeds our supply. I want to use community-driven semi-automation (essay) to make en.wn work better. I was aware when I started this effort that it was going to be a problem to develop the technology while keeping the review queue moving the whole time.

@De Wikischim: Speaking seriously. The danger I see is that Wikipedia, by teaching de facto bad information-consumption habits, will help to pull down global civilization — this is not a simple thing, not at all a "Wikipedia-bashing" thing, but a really profound and intractable consequence of the fundamental contrast between the core journalistic impulse to publish nothing wrong and the Wikipedian strategy of publish instantly and fix it later. Wikipedians tend to appreciate the advantages of their strategy but be blind to its fundamental flaws, and its fundamental flaws are especially prominent if one tries to apply it to news; which leaves en.wn on the front lines wrestling with challenges the Wikipedian community have barely (if at all) started to notice yet, and the effort I put into en.wn isn't "just" for the sake of en.wn but for the entire sisterhood and, through it, for the global community. I hope to implement and apply technology to make en.wn work better, and hopefully aspects of it that apply to other sister projects can be exported; I'm not trying to keep en.wn as it is, I'm trying to change the entire world. ("The same thing we do every night, Pinky: try to take over the world." — Pinky and the Brain) --Pi zero (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If articles really do contain copyright infringements, inaccurate information, spam and all such things, the sooner they are deleted the better, of course. But that's not my real point: I'm absolutely not convinced this was the case too for all the articles which I saw being deleted here yesterday (an example of an article which in my view surely had no neutrality bias, copyright violation or other serious flaws is United States: Amtrak train derails near Olympia, Washington which was started by user:Ottawahitech). About the mission you're talking about, this sounds very good and I really hope you'll succeed in it (though it seems to me just a little too idealistic). De Wikischim (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, but if there's no time to evaluate them, Wikinews doesn't know what they contain. If they didn't get published, what's the point in reviewing it? So it can be in an archive of failed articles? To be viewed by whom? One of the main problems of Wikinews is that everyone wants to write news, but nobody wants to sift through that news and do the reviews. I could write 5 articles in the time it takes to review 1. It is hard work. And yes, it has been a struggle to meet the mission, but thank you. --SVTCobra 23:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


I think you should check for accidental multiple links when you are dealing with wikifying and protecting redirects. You could import User:Acagastya/double.js -- it would add golden background and red border to the duplicates. You can tweak the colours if you want to.
•–• 08:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Leaving for Mysore tomorrow at 11 AM (IST), and would reach on Sunday, January 7 6 AM (IST), if the train is on time. Since I need to update articles on the channel, if you publish any article, email me about it since I would not be monitoring RC.
•–• 09:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not obliged to, but promised [not machine readable, but now that's someone else's problem]. I guess you know what to do (after creating a template) {{<template name>|date = December 2, 2017|source=Own work|author=acagastya|permission=Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 India (CC BY-ND 2.5 IN)}}. The basic work is available on {{testing}} as of 02:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC). --2605:3E80:700:10:0:0:0:320F (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Easy review gadget and {{Infobox}}[edit]

Hi Pi zero. When I published England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed with the Easy Review Gadget, it put the {{publish}} tag in the middle of one of the sources. See this diff. Do you know why? Secondly, every time I save changes to a page with an infobox, I get the message "Warning: This page calls Template:Infobox which causes a template loop (an infinite recursive call)." So, same question: Do you know why? Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The review gadget is known to sometimes misplace the publish template by skipping over only some of the sources section, especially (I think) when template calls occur in parameters to {{source}}. The trouble is probably a "regex" buried somewhere in the javascript of the gadget. The javascript of the review gadget is scary — I seem to recall even bawolff who wrote it saying so — and we've been mostly putting up with its quirks while we look forward to the day when we can replace it with a dialog-based semi-automated assistant.
  • The WMF has the (imo direly misguided) notion that nontrivial template functions should be shifted out of wiki markup to Lua or the like, and in support of that... agenda, they produce that warning. It's moderately useless without an associated way of finding the problem in an advanced template such as {{infobox}}, and I'm not even certain whether the warning is true, let alone whether the condition it reports is actually a flaw when it occurs in that particular template or simply is something doing what it ought to do.
--Pi zero (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Okie dokie. I am not enough of a technocrat to know what half of that means, but at least you are aware of it. PS I am trying to encourage a contributor who accused you of being a deletionist to do more work on their articles before submitting for review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Well, deletionism is a position I dislike that only makes sense in the context of Wikipedia-style entitlement. When a user comes to en.wn with an assumption that whatever they write is entitled to be published, they're not looking for a news site, they're looking for a blog, and it doesn't end well; I try hard to help folks who come here willing to try hard, but there's a point where I've done as much as I can for someone, and I feel that, however it happened, they are trapped in a mindset that cannot allow them to fit in here and I don't know how to help them out of unless they want to be helped. Perhaps you, coming fresh to the problem, can do better than I. --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry[edit]

The 'drama' surrounding my review of the tennis article somehow continues. I should perhaps have ignored some of the messages, but, alas, I replied. I tried to make amends by populating a requested category. It flared up again, however, early this morning. The overall experience has been unpleasant. I have interacted with a number of other users in the past few days and it has been pleasant and collaborative, but this one user seemingly hates everything I do. I am not asking for you to take any action; I just want you to be aware. Cheers, --SVTCobra 09:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: you have been doing the don't and not doing the dos. I have the right to voice it.
  1. Not properly source-checking
  2. not using important templates
  3. not protecting redirects
  4. opposing author's style of writing (and I remember conversation about various versions of English)
  5. self sighting newer edits
  6. not protecting articles post-publish
  7. telling me I was triggered by your edits

Looks to me that when I told you what you were doing wrong has triggered you.
•–• 09:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You have officially triggered me now. Are you the resident LOLCOW? What is actually wrong with you?
  1. False; don't even know what you on about here
  2. False; we already talked about {{under review}} and how that is optional.
  3. False; There is no policy to protect pre-publishing redirects. The policy is to protect them when articles get renamed after publishing.
  4. False; I did not change any part of the article for dialects of English
  5. False; what policy says I can't self-sight a minor typo or add a stock photo?
  6. False; I protected the article 2 minutes after publishing
  7. True, somewhat. I asked if you were triggered, which is not an unreasonable inquiry after your deluge of complaints
Now tell me again what I did wrong (other than interacting with you). --SVTCobra 09:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: A project like Wikinews is a balancing act. When you're dealing with folks who haven't grokked the basic principles, you try to help them learn. When dealing with other Wikinewsies who do grok the principles, you behave another way. We don't go in for a lot of bureaucratic red tape, so negotiating with other Wikinewsies is more a matter of exchanging tips on what we do. I would not say to a colleague (note, SVTCobra is most definitely an inner-circle Wikinewsie) about some fine point such as the things on the above list, 'that's wrong, this is how you must do it'; on especially simple things I might say 'btw in recent times we have consistently done such-and-such', and on most points, if I felt the need to remark on them at all (which I would tend to minimize), I would would go about it something like this:
@SVTCobra: Regarding images and self-sighting, common practice has had a complicated history in recent times. Historically, I would simply add an image to an article that didn't have one, typically as part of the review process. It's one of a class of intermediate-sized changes that I might well allow myself to do during review but hesitate to self-sight after publication; after all, we're quite clear that image choice can't be changed for archived articles. Part of my attitude is that a large part of the time for the past few years I've been the only reviewer around on a given day, so that anything I couldn't self-sight couldn't be sighted. My attitude changed a bit a year or so ago when BRS told me xe prefers to treat addition of images as a substantial addition of information, which would mean not doing it as part of review and never self-sighting. I had some doubts about that as a practical approach for times when I was the only reviewer around; however, while BRS was around too it certainly wasn't a problem, and some months later acagastya became a reviewer.
Acagastya: Perhaps you've gotten a bit set in your ways because, after all, you learned it all from me — it's always a danger, when much of the lore gets passed through me, that however I try to faithfully represent best practice, one person cannot easily convey the variety of a living tradition of many voices. I on the other hand have operated on Wikinews at times when there were a whole bunch of reviewers all operating here at once and many of them probably doing things I wouldn't agree with if I could keep up with it all; and I couldn't nearly keep up with all they were doing. There was a time that I would look at what was going on and when I saw a reviewer publish an article without making any changes to it first I would try to leave a gentle suggestion on their user talk page pointing out various advantages to trying to always make some copyedit before publishing (I believe that remark eventually found its way into WN:Tips on reviewing articles). Occasionally one the folks I made that remark to would get mad at me for it. After experiencing those times, I suppose I have a heightened appreciation of the give-and-take needed to maintain a large pool of thinking reviewers. --Pi zero (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's see;
  1. at 14:21, you had created the talk page of the tennis article, meaning you were okay with the last revision. Here, you had added the period within the quotation, while it was not, per the sources. I saw, and there was no {{under review}} or {{editing}} template to caution me, that it was under review, and I changed it. That is, what Darkfrog24 has said, the style used in English (US), and it clearly violates accuracy, and personal choice of style for the article.
  2. This revision of WSS's article which you had published has information which was abbreviated at the first instance. Parenthesised information is to be avoided, and the article should be for general audience. Not doing it, you had approved an article which violated the project mission of global audience [frankly, it could be understood by only US audience]
  3. Not using {{under review}} is like driving a vehicle without a rear view mirror on a highway with noise cancellation ear plugs -- you might think you did not meet an accident, but you are just making it harder for others to drive. We know what happened last night. And when I tried to tell you on your talk, inform on the article page, you held on to oppose everything that I said. You did not take precautions and then said, "Well, you messed it up by changing things. Now I have to look it over again." You blamed me for something that was not my fault. I had just asked a simple question. " Is the article published or not?"
  4. When I asked for the article to be moved back to "Aus Open", you reacted as if your ego was hurt, saying you would not change it even though many sourcereliable news orgs are okay saying it "Aus Open" in the title. If you have not heard about "Aus Open", it is not my fault, or problem. You should do your homework before reviewing. When I don't know certain things while reviewing, I ask. When pizero was reviewing the triple talaq article, I explained them about 'sati pratha'. But, here, there was no sort of willingness to listen or see from someone else's perspective. Instead, you recommended "AusOp: Murray Out" -- That style does not inform readers which sport, which Murray, or why out? Saying things which would not help.
  5. half an hour gap between publishing are protecting the article even though I had already informed you about it on your talk.
  6. Tennis:_Andy_Murray_withdraws_from_Aus_Open A mainspace redirect of a published article should be protected as a precaution. You did not do it.
  7. [2] You added an image and self-sighted it. It is a serious violation of policy against self sighting. It brings significant difference to the article, enough to leave it for other reviewer. When I tried to remove it, you reverted the edits and sighted it again. I was not trying to have an edit war, I left a note on your talk.
  8. By putting that period within the quote, not only it was not accurate, it was against the English (UK) style.

You asked me whit what authority I can ask you to do things; an admin is supposed to help editors, understand why they are asking certain things to be done [which was told to you], and to improve the project. And you lost your cool, telling me I was triggered, instead of actually helping. You said I wasted your time, if telling you to make certain edits that would prevent things from damage is wasting your time, I don't know what to tell you. All of this might look small things, but as a reviewer, one should be careful about smaller things. Apart from Darkfrog24, Gryllida and Pi zero, those editors whom you have interacted with [and had pleasant experience] are newbies, some not from this project, and who do not understand the project policies, mission, and pillars. Evidently, someone talking about how small actions which you were expected to do, but did not, has triggered you, making things unpleasant. Do you realise, all of it would have been avoided if you had used the precautionary {{under review}} template. (Well, most of it).
•–• 14:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: You're being hyper-critical of someone with much longer experience on the project than you have. Take it easy. Note that, while you might speculate on what would have happened if SVTCobra had used {{under review}} for that article, one might also speculate on what would have happened if, instead of telling them they were wrong not to use it, you had said something like 'Sorry we edit-conflicted; btw there's a template {{under review}} that is handy for warning others that a review is going on.' --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you mean the same experienced editor who questioned if {{Under review}} would have stopped me, blamed me for the problem, said I made the article worse, called me “lolcow”, said I was triggered, and what not, instead of addressing the problems? The same experienced editor, who chose not to listen to, and prefer author’s choice of title? The same experienced editor, who, instead of acting on the neutral remarks decided to conclude that I wasted people’s time? Experienced editors should be able to deal with it, not make things chaotic. Voicing my views triggered them. Why don’t you see the discussion and see for yourself? Don’t tell me that they are not aware of newer policies, PeP exists to take care of those situations. An admin is supposed to be the one supporting other editors, not saying a “No!” For the things they did not know for what they are reviewing. (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been following these discussions all along, and I have tried to offer you advice, from my own experience, on how best to approach these sorts of situations. --Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is utter nonsense. For the past 24 hours, this user has done nothing but bitch about the passing review I did for their article, no, the article they started. On Wikinews we do not own articles. I do not intend to make any rebuttal to the absurd accusations, lest someone else asks me to explain. I am sick of the stupidity and it is disruptive to the project. --SVTCobra 17:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
True. That is what I did. But your reviews revealed that as of today, you are not good enough for being a reviewer. You have done in that 2020 election article, and now for the tennis article. You don’t do all the things a reviewer is supposed to be doing. (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I have tried to remain neutral on as much of this stuff as possible. But you're mistaken about SVTCobra's fitness as a reviewer. I've made quite a few points today (most of them on this page, but perhaps a few were scattered about elsewhere) that bear on this; I'm not going to try to repeat them all. You really need to slow down; getting along with others on the project needs to be learned, just as Wikinews policies/principles/practices do. --Pi zero (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

bracketed information, opposing title name without any good reason, self sighting, that too, twice…guess everything is acceptable when an older Wikinewsie does it. (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Most, possibly all, of the concerns you've raised have been discussed seriously in response; you're not absorbing it all atm. --Pi zero (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
and yes, the “formal review” even though article was flagged with tasks. Every single time, ah well what is worth speaking. Good luck with those who remain. (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what that meant; too abbreviated, perhaps. --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Mistake, indeed[edit]

You're right, I should have addressed SVTCobra instead. Apologies. However, it is most of the time you who does the review process here, so I was somewhat confused by that. De Wikischim (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: I quite understand how it could happen, and take no offence (nor I think did SVTCobra); only meant to give you a heads-up, so you would realize it had happened and thus would have a better chance of not repeating that particular goof. (We all generally find enough new mistakes to make, don't we? :-) --Pi zero (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


This is what I have come up with. It is basically identical to what they use on Wikipedia, though they have separate ones for almost every type of publication imaginable. It will suffice for a cover page or an inside page (though hard to imagine why that would be necessary). Also, I see someone is back, after just retiring last night. I swear, I have never seen this type of drama. And I have seen a lot. Let me know if I should move forward with {{Cover}}. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Xe has been immensely helpful both in writing (about 100 articles last year, was it?) and in reviewing (I'm comfortable that xe understands the deep principles like neutrality). Methinks xe has the news bug, that makes it hard to stay away. I realize you've had challenging interactions with xem (on occasion I have too, relationships between people are generally uneven), but fwiw, I have found xem to be, ultimately, friendly. --Pi zero (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, methinks this user does not understand copyright, nor licenses. Look at the speedy tag on this very template. --SVTCobra 02:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Meh, copyright and licenses are appallingly complicated topics. (I admit, I want to try to finish this review and get to bed.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for the review. I have extended my olive branch. But if this continues, especially as an IP, I will lose my patience. Anyway, good night. --SVTCobra 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

But why, P0?[edit]

I like Rwandan streaming platform music. {Insert sad face emoticon} --SVTCobra 15:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Alas. --Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You said WMF does not hold the copyright on those pages; the users who wrote it do, and any use of it by the WMF is subject to permission of the authors in your response. What "pages" do you mean? --SVTCobra 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The pages I was discussing, that are in various namespaces. --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks, but you do realize once you click the "save changes" button you don't own any copyright anymore. Basically, the most you can hope for is an attribution, and that will come in the form of "Courtesy of Wikinews", if you are lucky. It is not yours, it's part of the project. Just like the comment I am writing right now. These are Wikinews' words at best, but probably Wikimedia's words, at worst they are Jimmy Wales' words. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
"Attribution will be to Wikinews" is a phrase I see. The more I think about it the more I suspect you're at-best oversimplifying the copyright situation; my best guess would be that you're outright mistaken about who holds copyright. Drawing a crisp line between copyright-holding and authorship for various wiki pages seems to me likely to be strongly needed only if there were a horrific meltdown in relations between the Foundation and the volunteers — which seems an entirely possible development, looking at the superprotect mess that I don't think the Foundation ever apologized for nor ruled out doing again. Note, sister projects I've seen generally consider request-of-sole-author a reason for speedy deletion, and the authors are in my experience universally agreed to be the stakeholders all of whose permission would be needed if one ever wanted to loosen terms of copyright.

Keeping in mind, this is a side issue to the current question... I think. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

OR files[edit]

I tried to, but could not upload all the OR material locally due to unstable internet (duh!) connection. Two audiosand notes — I grant you to release it under ND license (there is one in the drop down menu for FU upload) So add the material and have a link on the talk, might be useful to others. Also, I have opted out from Email service. You might need to change the format of audio files, perhaps.
•–• 16:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


Got to leave at even — that is terrible; odd seems to be the right number for me. Well, it is how it is. I started on odd, and m ending on odd, though have even articles x_X
•–• 06:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand. --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I see you started to write something last night (my time), which explains part of it. As for the other part I don't understand, I am still game for you to try to write, say, 300 articles in 2018. Or 301, which (if I'm understanding the other) would put you at an odd number. --Pi zero (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there! TheRumbler (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


Speaking of sockpuppetry, do we not have anybody with checkuser privileges? What do we do if we need to check for sockpuppets? Go to Meta? Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Iirc, Tom Morris had CU here but it was revoked due to inactivity. (The Foundation goes out of its way to avoid doing things that would help us, but they're quite diligent about taking stuff away from us.) We have a page for requesting CU, of course; who monitors it and might respond to a request, atm, idk. --Pi zero (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. And the person who agreed with the nomination to revoke, cited a policy that each project must have at least two checkusers. So zero is closer to two, than one??? I didn't follow that logic. IMHO, that policy should have been a reason to let him keep his rights. It's not like he's not available if we need him, there just hasn't been a need for that tool, I guess. Instead, they should have asked us to nominate a second person. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: This is what the Foundation does, routinely. There have to be two CUs, and as soon as they find an excuse to remove the second-to-last, they remove the last one as well. It happened to us on English Wikibooks back in 2010, but fortunately that's a larger project and, with someone volunteering for the nomination, we were able to turn around quite quickly and get a new second CU; on the timeline chart for en.wb CU, Arignola's tenure has this narrow gap of nine days where they didn't have CU. (I've resisted compressing the chart any more horizontally because that gap would disappear, in the rendering.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I just read more about how it went down. They removed User:Brian for inactivity, and then Tom for being last one standing. Unlike, 2016 where they gave Brian a chance to respond before removing, they just removed it. The cruel irony is, Brian edited later that same day. And not because of the checkuser thing, but because of the ArbCom election. Since they both seem to be reachable, should we re-nominate them both? Or do you want it? Is there any sense in trying to reach User:Cspurrier, he hasn't been active on any project since 2016? I have no interest in being a checkuser because I think one has to sign an NDA. --SVTCobra 18:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Should we try to get some checkusers or is it not worth the effort? Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Having checkusers is a desirable thing for a project, for its independence, and Wikinews does care about its independence. At the same time, it is admittedly not easy for a project of our current size to get the requisite number of votes. On the third hand, my distant memory is that, last I had occasion to study such things, there was no specific time limit on how long such a vote could remain open, which was quite important in enabling smaller projects to achieve the requisite count. If we want to undertake it, perhaps it would be worth inquiring (of a Steward, I suppose) whether it would actually be necessary to get a fresh vote for Tom Morris, whose bit was not removed for inactivity, or would it be sufficient to get a fresh vote for Brian; after all, if the answer were that only Brian needed a fresh vote, that would simplify the process.

I note, btw, that Brian received a notice at Wikipedia on the first of the year that they were on the verge of losing their admin bit due to inactivity, to which they promptly responded with assurance that they were still around. --Pi zero (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have posed the question over at Meta. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and I do think votes can stay open for as long as needed. The only reference to time, that I saw, was a minimum of two weeks. --SVTCobra 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW, Tom Morris will be reinstated if we elect another Checkuser. Should we contact user:Brian? Who else could we nominate? user:Mikemoral, user:Amgine, user:IlyaHaykinson, user:Brian McNeil? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: (Serves me right for not checking my Meta watchlist more often, I guess.) Well, mikemoral is more active these days than Brian; it wouldn't be unreasonable to inquire. I'm unsure whether there would be any ideological awkwardness for Amgine or possibly IlyaHayinson. Brian MacNeil has been pretty inactive for a while now. (I'm not sure where to find information about who has been a CU here in the past; somewhere on Meta?) --Pi zero (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you want to send out some feelers? If we get someone willing, we can probably use sitenotice to encourage people to vote. --SVTCobra 15:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
{{Refuse}} - Amgine | t 23:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I was pinged a while ago, but haven't had the chance to write a note. I don't think I'm around quite often enough to be effective in that role. Though poking through Meta, it seems Meta wants either 0 or >2 CUs per wiki, and it asks for a vote of at least 25-30 users. I guess the reasoning is that it prevents unchecked abuse. —mikemoral (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi, Pi zero. Back in the day, Wikinews traditionally resisted the creation of too many categories. I always agreed with that. It is encyclopedic and burdensome. Therefore, I disagree with the efforts here Categories to be created and populated and here Category:Categories to be populated. I do not think Wikinews needs categories for every football (soccer) club under the sun. I do not think we need categories for small cities, historic ruins, or places of worship. I haven't commented, because I am a persona non grata when it comes to certain people, and don't want to ruffle any more feathers than I already have. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I had an insight, a while back, about the importance of local wikilinks.

When I arrived here and started deeply considering what aspects of the project were not working as they ought, one of the things I noticed was that despite our policy that wikilinks in articles should use local targets whenever available, almost all wikilinks were to Wikipedia. Checking each link for a local target was generally impractical, when one was busy with the more important aspects of article writing, unless one was quite certain that there would be a local target (which mostly meant, countries and US states, which one could be absolutely certain would always be there to link to); and categorizing articles was also hit-or-miss as one would similarly not know what imaginable categories would actually exist. Creating new categories mostly just made the whole thing even harder to maintain. And the more I thought about that, the more I realized that it was preventing Wikinews from feeling like a real project. The larger the proportion of wikilinks from Wikinews articles went to Wikipedia, the more Wikinews felt like a trivial adjunct to Wikipedia. With a real project, such as Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc., most or all of the wikilinks in the primary content text are links to other pages on the project, and one can spend about as long as one wants browsing the project, wandering from article to article by clicking wikilinks, without ever leaving that project. Wikibooks, for instance, strongly discourages non-Wikibooks links in the primary text of a book. (In fact, Wikibooks really prefers that wikilinks in the primary text of a book should be mainly internal to the book, which is a tip-off that each book is in some sense its own microproject, with Wikibooks as a whole being a sort of confederation of thousands of microprojects that have banded together to share a common administrative infrastructure; but I digress.) So I planned out, proposed, and implemented {{w}}, which both automatically uses available local targets and automatically flags out which categories one should consider adding to each article. And a year or two (could it have been three?) ago, BRS, who does a lot of category work on our archives, remarked that {{w}} had profoundly changed the dynamics of categories on the project (though I'm sure BRS said it in a better and more BRS-like way than that). --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I can certainly say that I have wandered around Wikipedia clicking link after link, with a "what's that?" inquisitive mind and then hours later wondering "how did I wind up here?" But my feeling is, if one is perusing news about football (for example) does one want to read older match reports of random matches (we are light-years away from having complete season match reports for any team) or does one want to read about the history of that team in an encyclopedic format (like, did they win championships before, etc.). It is an interesting insight, nonetheless, and if one day the archives were so dense with news, it would be wonderful. But the truth is, we had an above average day and published two articles. I reviewed and published the SoCal mudslides story. In 10 or so days it will be archived and protected. But people can come back and say "add this category" because Wikinews now has two articles that mention the mayor of Santa Barbara? (just an example) ... Now you mention {{w}} flags categories to add. I must admit, I have not seen that in action, perhaps because they were already added, I don't know. Cheers. --SVTCobra 03:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
BTW, you seem to know BRS in a whole different way than I did. I just remember BRS as the person who wrote articles about plane crashes. Do you two have common history on Wikibooks? Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Atm we ask for at least three published articles that would belong in a category before we create it (with rare exceptions). Although, we have discussed proactively creating some entire classes of categories despite not having enough articles for them, if we can work out how to send each associated local link to something more useful than an empty category (on which I've an idea or two); for example, we might want to have categories for all the states of India, even though we don't have three articles about every one of them.

Regarding {{w}} flagging things out, there's a gadget and several categories.

In Special:Preferences, under the gadgets tab, section User interface gadgets, the fifth from the bottom is "Underline in green categorizable {{w}} links"; if you select that gadget, then look at any recent article, each {{w}} link to a local target will be heavily underlined in green. The idea is that you can easily find the local links provided by {{w}}, consider adding the target categories, and after making your decision about whether to categorize them, replace that {{w}} call with a hard local link. (There are some that can't be eliminated: the {{source}} template uses {{w}} to link the publishers, and specifies nocat so that those wikilinks don't categorize the article, but the green underlining gadget still flags out the local wikilinks.)

The most important of the categories involved is Category:Pages with categorizable local links, which contains every page that contains at least one local wikilink through {{w}}. It's not a problem that there are a huge number of them (though not nearly as huge as the number of articles that haven't yet been converted to use {{w}}, because the size of Category:Pages with categorizable local links isn't a liability, it's an asset: every one of those local links through {{w}} would be a problem anyway (without {{w}} it would be incorrectly non-local), and the category means we have a convenient way to find those problems where they are patiently waiting to be manually processed. Looking at any of those individual articles, one finds the localizing links themselves by means of the gadget.

If someone wants to see encyclopedic information about any of those football (soccer) teams, or indeed if they want to see information about the team on any other sister project, those sister links are provided on our category page unless it's one of the dwindling number of our categories that has not yet been converted to use {{topic cat}}. I want to provide a local browsing experience and allow the reader to branch off from it to another project if and when they consciously choose.

(I'm not sure what to say about BRS.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Here's a thought re BRS: yes he's done a lot of plane crashes; but some very cool science OR also comes to mind. One of the OR articles I'm proudest to have helped see to publication (setting aside William Saturn's politics articles) is 'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia. --Pi zero (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi Pi zero. Why did you delete the comment of and block them. They wrote in all-caps, but it was hardly gibberish. Isn't that what the opinions tab is for? --SVTCobra 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I thought deeply about that, and left some thoughts at WN:AAA#Information warfare in troll space. --Pi zero (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre spam attack[edit]

Have you noticed how much spam is related to gardening/home farming/planting etc.? Is it normal to come in topical waves? Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Sometimes; at a guess, one or more clients pay someone to deliver hits on their site(s), which they go about by spreading spam here amongst whatever other measures, and if the clientele is topic-coherent, the resulting spam is too.

A phenomenon I find bemusing is boilerplate user pages of roughly the form 'my name is <something>, I live in <someplace>, I'm interested in <list of things>, check out my blog site: <link to obviously commercial site>' — where the name given is completely at odds with the name of the account. --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, they must be bots. And these very long articles with just tiny links somewhere in the middle of the text. I tried googling blocks of the text to see if they were farming (no pun intended) the text from somewhere, but didn't come up with anything. The Internet is a very, very strange place indeed. --SVTCobra 00:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I'm looking at all the spam you're nixing, plus some that I'm nixing, and I'm wondering if this much was happening all along and I just didn't notice or if it's especially bad atm. --Pi zero (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The last few days have been pretty heavy, but looking at the deletion log, there were some heavy days in December, too. The nice thing about those was that a single user would create a bunch of spam articles and the mass deletion tool and a single block made it easier to clean up. Now, they seem to be one piece of spam per user, but many users. --SVTCobra 02:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: ...and the gardening trend continues. --Pi zero (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow! The fake tech support numbers have been exceedingly heavy the last couple of days. I looked at the deletion log. There are literally hundreds of them. --SVTCobra 21:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: When I got up this morning (after only four hours of sleep) I'd guess there were around a hundred of them for me to delete. The "thanks" system only works for edits, I've noticed there's no way to thank someone for deleting something; but, your help is appreciated. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
No need to thank me. BTW, there is very low correlation between Category:Admin and Wikinews:Administrators. Do we need to sort that out? Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It does not seem to be slowing down. What resources do we have as far as checkuser and getting an IP range ban? It is obviously all connected and from the same source. --SVTCobra 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I thought "gardening" was weird, but somehow "elevator repair" is the new trend. Who is the target for these spammers? It's mind-boggling. --SVTCobra 00:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Original reporting[edit]

Hi! I forgot to take my notebook when I was at the stadium, and I remembered few PAS Giannina players as I support AEK Athens. Gmentis (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gmentis: That's quite unfortunate. WN:OR is cool, and we've a long tradition of OR coverage of sports events, but we do need well-kept documentation. --Pi zero (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


Good morning. I want to clear some of the backlog. Would you agree we should not change the infobox in archived articles, even if the infobox is deprecated? I am inclined to reject those requests. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Although we don't go crazy changing them around, we have occasionally changed infoboxes on archived articles, even years later. The theory would be that an infobox is a peripheral, not part of the article itself. I don't recall what was requested, and thus don't know the context of the case (which I would probably take my cue from in making a recommendation, or decision). --Pi zero (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The article in question is this 2006 article: Tennis player Rafael Nadal crowned "King of Clay". The infobox isn't even deprecated (as I suggested above), it's just not one anybody uses anymore. It seems like an unnecessary amount of digging around in the archives. --SVTCobra 17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: It's not a particularly helpful infobox for the reader currently. I think I would be inclined to accept that request; the replacement infobox seems more useful for readers. --Pi zero (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


I can still see media from photo essay on Facebook — which causes problems with its Terms, and grants special sub-licensing rights I did not agree with, contact the page admin and ask them to delete it.
•–• 20:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't remember if I have asked this before[edit]

but why Obituary is not redirected to Category:Obituaries?
•–• 10:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: presumably nobody created the redirect. I'll do that now. --Pi zero (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Can't be sure of that. You never know if it was not created for a good reason.
•–• 13:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: True. Perhaps a bit of archaeology can help. The redirect Obituaries was created when a page with that name was moved to portal space in December 2005. Judging by that and another spot-checked case (Sports), I conjecture portal space may have been introduced around that time. So the Obituaries redirect was explicitly because the portal used to be at that location in mainspace. The concept of multiple mainspace redirects for a non-mainspace target may have evolved later, and presumably the introduction of modern {{w}} in January 2011 significantly strengthened the incentive for mainspace redirects. --Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And what about Bangalore => Category:Bengaluru and Munich !=> München?
•–• 14:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Afaics, Category:Bengaluru is the name it was created under, and we never had one called Category:Bangalore. This seems consistent with modern English-language news practice, so far as I've noticed. I don't recall ever hearing "München" in English-language news, though. So I believe that "Bengaluru" and "Munich" are both consistent with following common English usage. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe because you read about "Bengaluru" from local sources.
•–• 15:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Hard to say. I'm more aware of these things than the average USian, I suppose. Someone I know took a business trip to India a few years ago and said the city names were reverting to traditional forms so fast, he'd visit a city, come back a week later and it'd have a different name.

Fwiw, I'm looking at my dead-tree AP Stylebook (from 2015) and it lists Mumbai ("India's largest city, formerly known as Bombay"), and Munich. (I don't see a mention of Bengaluru or Bangalore, though.) That guide does advise, under foreign names, "For foreign place names, use the primary spelling in Webster's New World College Dictionary. If it has no entry, follow the National Geographic Atlas of the World." I generally try to be relaxed about it, and pick a geographical category name that I perceive to be the generally agreed-upon English name for the place. --Pi zero (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

local sources => Indian sources, or in some rare cases, BBC, but then, the local reporter, perhaps being an Indian, or using Google Maps to see the spelling, would choose the spelling. Still, those local sources are written for the local audience, and they need to please their audience [did you know the ongoing issue of removing Hindi from Bengaluru metro, because it was state govt. project, and some argued, Kannada is not used for Delhi metro stations.] Choice of spelling does matter to local media. Besides, for Indian news articles, I generally use news orgs from Southern India. Confusing as hell.
•–• 16:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Spelling varies between articles, not just for place names but for common nouns too, depending on what the reporter chose to do (thinking about it, an important reason for going with the variety of English the reporter chose is that we need to not have squabbles over superficial stuff; there's just not time, unlike Wikipedia where if the contributors want to spend six months arguing about how to punctuate some sentence, more power to them). I primarily had in mind how we spell the names of geographical categories, where we have to choose one. Which should be a relatively painless thing, since the category name isn't what one sees in the body of an article. If you're thinking of which name we use for something in the article, well, if there's an especially common confusion possible it may be desirable to mention. (Sometimes it's hard to make the call, like whether or not one ought to mention in an article about Myanmar the name "Burma", which has political ramifications.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


Pending revision. (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

And the documentation as well. (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


If I had a dollar for every time I typed "Justing", I would be a rich man. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Are you in the mood (and have time) to write an article? Or would you prefer to review one? It seems particularly slow around here. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Well, I don't think I would have time to write one atm. In recent years I've rarely had any luck trying to review later in the evening than about midnight UTC (7pm here on the US east coast). Whether I would have time to write anything in the next few days, I have no idea. --Pi zero (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Nothing is really grabbing my interest at this time. I read some stuff that could serve as an interesting follow-up to the Pope article, but it might be seen as overkill to have two so close to each other. Don't want to get accused of POV-pushing. --SVTCobra 21:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


{{votings}} is moved to sitenotice? (Agmine told they had blocked it); besides, it is sort of redundant -- I need to see if it is accessible when not logged in.
•–• 04:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: The ordinary sitenotice selects from five possible messages, one of which is {{votings}}. --Pi zero (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

OR for Madahayi river dispute/Karnataka bandh[edit]

I have prepared the notes, and taken some photos -- do you want to have an OR? [Just to let you know, I would call it "a flop" in Mysore]
•–• 08:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: How "a flop"? --Pi zero (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
no real support in Mysore, and other southern cities, and also, Mangalore. Almost as if not therir river, not their problem.
•–• 17:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


I have reviewed all the articles that I am eligible to review. --SVTCobra 19:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that the difference between {{quick review}} and {{breaking review}}. I don't see what you refer to in WN:REVIEW or elsewhere. --SVTCobra 03:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is a functional difference between the two templates, despite their different appearance.

Figuring out where things are said can be extraordinarily difficult (keeping in mind, some really important things aren't clearly spelled out anywhere; in this case I've a memory it is said somewhere, I just don't know where). --Pi zero (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I searched the water cooler and other places it might hide, but came up empty. Therefore, I must go by what the template says: "To reviewers: Please prioritize this article higher on your review list, as it is news that needs to get published quickly or will become stale quickly." Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Getting stale quickly means doing so in less than the usual timeframe. Rather than, coming near the end of the usual timeframe. --Pi zero (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
That's certainly one way to interpret those words, but I would argue both apply here. I am sure you have noticed that there's already a follow-up article. --SVTCobra 13:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm interested in community intention and in practicality. Clearly spending a lot of time on this would be counter-productive, but as food for thought, a hypothetical scenario. We've a dozen articles on the queue (or four dozen, or more; we need to be planning to scale up), which, let us suppose, is significantly more than our available reviewers are going to be able to handle, and about a third of them are close to losing freshness due to simple review delays. A reviewer, considering what to do first, could choose to do the oldest on the queue first, but that choice won't increase the number of articles published and will increase the average age of those published; so it might be reasonable for them to choose to review the youngest first, instead, producing about the same number of publications and decreasing their average age when published. But even if they don't go for youngest-first, if a third of the articles get marked for quick review, and an article comes along with a claim to quick review due to its content, reviewers won't know that because it'll be lost in a pile of articles marked as high priority. --Pi zero (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

In your hypothetical scenario, if the aim is to maximize number of articles, the surest way to go is to review oldest first. That does, inherently, lower the average freshness, but only if one assumes some are lost to staleness. Without knowing the rates of submissions and the capacity for reviews, this dilemma cannot be solved without ascribing a value to freshness versus quantity. Perhaps we can have that discussion again when it becomes relevant in the scaled-up Wikinews.

I was surprised at how anathema {{quick review}} was to you. I don't know why we shouldn't use this functionality when the queue is short. I was not trying to bring it to your attention. I know you are aware of nearly every edit here. I was doing it in hopes that a passing-by reviewer (like Green Giant or mikemoral) might see it in red on WN:RC and perhaps take a look at it. I was not trying to use it to point a finger at you and say "Why are you ignoring my article!" I hope you understand that.

P.S. That Wikipedian that was here (Nth) actually linked our unpublished Kabul bombing article on the Wikipedia page for same. I removed it, of course, but I wish they would do that with our published articles. I have been doing that extensively since I've been back, and with reasonable success. Most of those sister links are still alive on Wikipedia. No idea if it is actually driving any traffic. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


Hi Pi zero, I am doing some janitorial work today. I am not feeling at my journalistic best, but I did try to clean up the Kabul bombing story after I saw there were some further edits to it. I'm sorry that AZOperator went ahead and submitted that Hamilton HS article for review. I was hoping to guide the story to a state where it would actually be reviewable. Hope you didn't waste too much time on it. I've removed some {{prepared}} tags from really old user space articles. Hope you agree it was appropriate. I also want to give you a heads-up that I am planning to submit some non-free images for deletion. Don't fret, they are not used in mainspace articles. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


I suspected the Hamilton article wasn't really ready yet, and tried to provide constructive criticism without wearing myself out on stuff you were probably already aware of problems with.

If an article is marked in preparation, it's probably best to leave it that way. I've not looked at the particular cases; but an article in userspace that's in preparation seems to me a profoundly different creature than one that's just archived there. (For one thing, a prepared article is subject to both prodding and speedy deletion criteria.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, one was about 30 years after Thatcher and we are now nearing 40 years. Trust me, these were really old. I'm fine with leaving them in user space, but it is unhelpful for them to show up in the newsroom because of {{prepared}}. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


[real short term plan is that I sleep, wake up at 4:30PM your time, and write about the referendum against anti-abortion law] but the discussion is about the relatively long term goals -- that is: CC @SVTCobra, Green Giant, Koavf, Darkfrog24, Yngvadottir: (I guess every active editor who are able to get their articles published with ease are pinged) on a normal day, Pi zero can easily manage two successful articles, and I am not sure about Green Giant or SVTCobra's speed or daily commitment, but I guess at least four articles can be published a day with ease. Now, that was the case of three reviewers. (four, if I am able to get the reviewer bits back after the procedure) Speaking of SVTCobra, Green Giant (in terms of authors), koavf and me (I am planning to write at least one article each day.) [and Darkfrog24 and Yngvadottir] who are active regularly -- I think our aim is to write at least four articles in one day so the reviewers can review it. Yes, this is a lot to ask, I wanted to ask for five, but considering the real life, let's divide the work so that we can have maximum output without exhausting. Now for that, it is really important if we discuss when are we online. Anyone has problem with that? (Now, why am I asking this -- simple answer is for the better output for the project, but I also intend to bring hi.wikinews out of incubator, and bring some editors or their articles from Hindi to English -- and I got this idea after seeing the output in recent days and to create print edition again) So shall we have a structured plan?
•–• 14:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Um. I'm really happy that we're getting more articles now: I note that SVTCobra and DeWikischim both in the past week wrote up stories that I had been thinking of doing. And I see the stress on the reviewers of the greater volume. I have thought that it might make sense to have some planning of what stories we should cover, using the existing newsroom perhaps, but have set that aside as unrealistic given that we are all volunteers, and also that we all have varying interests and probably also are aware of stories that others may not even know about. And the first part of that is my response to this proposal: I'm afraid I can't be relied upon to be around and able to work on en.wikinews at any particular times. Even when I was an admin on en.wikipedia, I was not one who could be relied upon to always be available when I was online. And my schedule is very peculiar even without the fact I'm often working on something else. So thanks for the implied confidence, but I don't fit well into structured planning. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
It has always been a basic difficulty of en.wn that volunteers don't have a predictable schedule. The fewer folks there are here, the more severe the immediate consequences; if there are more people here, there's some statistical averaging out. The averaging out requires greater project efficiency, both because greater project efficiency is needed to support significant growth, to achieve the averaging, and because averaging is only helpful if what things average out to is viable. For project efficiency, it's been clear to me for years that we have to make review much less hard on reviewers, and greatly reduce the lump-sum time investment for a full review. It's not about allowing a reviewer to get more reviews done in the same amount of time; for a volunteer to clear their schedule for a big consecutive block of time to review is much harder than clearing their schedule for a smaller consecutive block of time, so I'm hoping a great reduction in the size of the lump-sum can significantly increase availability of qualified reviewers to do any review at all. One can puzzle over the challenge of coordinating volunteer reviewer time to volunteer reporter submissions — keeping in mind that the usual volunteer model is someone dropping in to do random amounts of stuff whenever works for them rather than doing large blocks of stuff whenever someone else decides to submit an article, and also keeping in mind that writing is generally more fun than reviewing — but so far I'm still shooting for a lump-sum-investment savings of a factor of two or three. --Pi zero (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
While, yes. I have been active lately, it is not something I can commit to being in the future. The reason is, I am between jobs. Should I find gainful employment, I might essentially "disappear" again for stretches of time. And even before that happens, there will be days when I am away for job interviews, etc. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for tagging me and I like that you have a plan. Essentially, with a more flexible job, I'm able to commit more time to Wikimedia but (and this may offend sensitive ears) I am also committed to a number of activities across several wikis. I will definitely try to review a little more but can't guarantee it. Green Giant (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Jeez! Sorry I missed this. I've been dealing with an off-Wiki matter that's been cutting into my 'pedia/Newsie time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Why did you block me?[edit]

I was asking a legit question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DisuseKid (talkcontribs) 03:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@DisuseKid: The question could be considered marginally okay under some circumstances. Sequence of events as I saw it:
  • You created a page "DisuseKid revealed to be Wikipedian God". Blatantly not a serious news article; of course it's speedy-deletion-bait. I speedily deleted it.
  • You created a page "Category talk:Developing" where you asked 'Where is this article about DisuseKid?'. Well, that's not an appropriate place to enquire, and it seemed you were just horsing around; so I speedily deleted that. You recreated it, with the additional question 'Why'd you delete this', and the third time you said 'Don't you dare delete this again, or I will report you to the Wikipedian God.'. It seemed to me you were horsing around and knew what you were doing, so I applied a short preventative block.
If you wish to contribute positively to Wikinews, there is a compact overview of what we do here at Wikinews:Pillars of writing, and after reading that I would recommend our tutorial on writing a first article at Wikinews:Writing an article. --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
But DisuseKid is the Wikipedian God. DisuseKid (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
On Wikipedia they'd say "citation needed". Here we might say "not verified". But the point is moot anyway, because Wikinews is not Wikipedia. --Pi zero (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't commit apostasy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DisuseKid (talkcontribs) 05:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

HEIL DISUSEKID!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DisuseKid (talkcontribs)

This user is clearly w:WP:NOTHERE for writing news articles. Isn't that reason good enough to block this Al-Masih ad-Dajjal?
•–• 08:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not. See w:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DisuseKid for examples of this users "contributions". Green Giant (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Wonder what "definitely not" was for. Not here; or not a good reason to block. (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
There is precedent for folks who got in trouble elsewhere and became useful contributors on en.wn. They have settled down, following the initial 36-hour (iirc) block, to a good-natured conversation here. --Pi zero (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
As in definitely not here, but we should also definitely give them a chance to improve their interactions with us. Green Giant (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, with their latest action, I blocked them. --Pi zero (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Abuse Filter[edit]

Hi. I don't know if you are aware, but I've modified the abusefilter 25 in order to stop this spam. It's working well so far, so I wonder if you could let the abuse filter block accounts? Matiia (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Matiia: Thanks! I can see from the log it's doing things. Although, since you tweaked it I've had to block-and-nuke another eight [nineteen] spambot accounts (and counting) [plus one someone else got]. I don't think any automatic filter will ever really cope, as the problem is quite similar to solving a captcha. Two thoughts:
  • I'm alarmed by the idea of any automated device being empowered to block. And, would we even know it had happened? I've never added "check abuse filters" to my list of things I do regularly; the additional cognitive burden seems like the straw that would break the camel's back.
  • I don't know how one would even do that.
--Pi zero (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
If an account is blocked by abusefilter, it'd be logged at Special:Log/block as well as shown on Special:RecentChanges.
There's a 'Block the user and/or IP address from editing' checkbox on Special:AbuseFIlter/25. if you click it and then click save filter, filter'd start blocking accounts/IPs hitting it.
But well, checking list of admin accounts, User:Abuse filter isn't shown, despite abusefilters showing the option of blocking accounts, so unless a ticket on phab is open, abusefilter couldn't block accounts, anyway. Matiia (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Open WN:DR[edit]

Hi Pi. Just wanted to call your attention to the fact, we have an open WN:DR (my nomination) which has not received a single vote or comment in three weeks. They are only supposed to last seven days (I think). Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Free images[edit]

While adding photos to topic cat, please make sure the image used is free/qualifies for fair use. The photo for Mysore's category was taken from Flickr and was not under CC license.
•–• 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: The history on Commons indicates you are mistaken. User Martin H. certified in December 2009 that at the time of upload to Commons the photographer was distributing the image under a compatible license, and subsequently the photographer began to distribute it under a more restrictive license (much more restrictive, I see). A later change of license has no effect on the legal status of the Commons image. --Pi zero (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
I see you chose to answer two different things together. Well, should not everything be verified? There must be a proof that the image was actually released under a free license ( might help) One can claim that for any Flickr image, otherwise.
•–• 19:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
We are not talking about a certification by some miscellaneous Commons user. This is why I carefully noted who had certified it. Martin H. is a Commons admin, and had been so for two years at the time they certified the previous image license. The license on that Commons image is solid; if you don't like the image, fine, but there's no copyright problem with it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
If the author files a complain that their image was wrongfully used, how would Commons prove that it was indeed available under CC license?
•–• 16:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The author was told (I had noticed this, early in this discussion) on the image comments about eight years ago that the image was being used on the Wikipedia main page. And that is right about the time they (according to the Commons admin) changed the license; one plausible possibility is that their change in license was because they had discovered that one or more of their images had been uploaded, and they realized there was nothing they could do about it. And if they tried to object now, their objection would probably be dismissed on Commons because they have that testimony by an elevated-trust individual that the license changed and had previously been compatible. Much the same way that the accuracy of information in the Wikinews archives may depend on the past testimony of users who, at the time, had been granted elevated trust by the Wikinews community.

(There was a case on Commons, that I was involved with a while back, in which an image was proposed for deletion that is used very prominently on Wikijunior — it is the cover photo for the book Wikijunior:Solar System. This was originally a NASA image, and all NASA's stuff is public domain, but NASA took down the image (likely because somebody mistakenly believed the image implied Pluto is a planet). And there was no certification, by anyone of elevated trust, that the image really was originally provided by NASA without restrictive copyright. If nobody had bothered to do anything, the image would have been pointlessly deleted, screwing over Wikibooks in the process. I went out and found another place on the web where a published document of some sort effectively provided the missing certification; and because of that, the image was not deleted. Thinking about that afterwards, I reckon that most likely, even if that other document I found on the internet later becomes unavailable, the image on Commons should be safe, exactly because we now have on the record, from the rejected RFD, that a Commons admin saw the certification.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

That possibility would be ruled out by the court. Is there a solid evidence? Then only one can keep it. Interestingly, there was a similar case with AlvaroMolina’s signature. The globe they were using in their sign was taken down (or perhaps the license notice was removed. But that was not sufficient reason to restore the deleted image from Commons.
•–• 02:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[edit]

Good morning. When you blocked and mass deleted this IP, you forgot to notice that things had been added to existing pages as well. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

From the logs it seems I did miss them, yes. Another use for dialog (I see that in everything, these days). --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Technical problems[edit]

Just to note, I was off the grid for most of the past 24 hours, due to a power outage and collateral damage to my laptop (looks like I may have lost everything). It's likely my attention will be split, trying to deal with the aftermath, for some time. --Pi zero (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

We almost sent out a search-and-rescue team when you hadn't posted a single edit in 12 hours. We'll to pick up the slack while you get sorted. Cheers, --SVTCobra 09:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that and hope you’re safe and sound. Did you have any backups? Green Giant (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Not recent ones; a great deal of regular maintenance I should be doing has slipped lately (including regular maintenance to our backup generator, which greatly increased the impact of the event; we once got through a week-long power outage without much slowing to my Wikinews activity thanks to that generator, but it's not much good if it won't start). The data may be recoverable; it's even possible the laptop may be recoverable, in principle, but what I can manage remains to be seen. --Pi zero (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, if it’s any comfort, I think it’s quite normal to fall behind with maintenance. We spent five days last week trapped by snow brought the Beast from the East! I hope it all works out for you. Green Giant (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Real name policy?[edit]

Hi! I'm going to be at two conventions this weekend doing OR, Toronto Comicon and Furnal Equinox, the latter being a furry convention. I'm hoping to speak with some folks about their furry fandom, but I'm guessing that it'll be hard to find people both saying interesting things and being open to me using their full human name. Even the guests of honour are "Patto", "Fox Amoore", and Rick Griffin (which could be real, but is conveniently a species.) Are phrases like "Nicnak, an artist in the show's Dealer's Den, said..." okay? -- Zanimum (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Zanimum: Seems reasonable to me. As you describe it. In practice, presumably, one wants to point out that names are pseudonymous, but how much or little is needed on that front is not clear to me thinking in the abstract. --Pi zero (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Maria Contreras-Sweet Group buys The Weinstein Company assets, saves it from bankruptcy[edit]

Hi. Could you accept the revision where I renamed this article? It didn't get highlighted in yellow on WN:RC which is probably why it slipped by. It was a simple typo fix "bankrupcy" => "bankruptcy". Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Done. Imho that's minor enough to self-sight, though I've no objection if for whatever reason you want the added weight-of-approval afforded on such an edit by being sighted by someone else. --Pi zero (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
If it was in the text of the article, I probably would have done so. With a page-move so many days after publication, I felt more comfortable if it was looked over, with the redirect-protection, etc. Thanks, --SVTCobra 18:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of outstanding revision-reviews, Template:Abandoned/msg has a couple that are over 10 days old. I don't feel comfortable sighting it myself, since it involves some wiki-code and automatic category population (I think). Cheers,
Hate to bug you again, but these changes need to be sighted or reverted. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Close one[edit]

One hour and thirtyfour minutes past the 24-hour window. --SVTCobra 00:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: We've tended to be pretty strict about the 24 hours. As I recall, when the community agreed on the 24-hour figure there was nobody who wanted more than 24 hours and some people wanted an even shorter fuse than that. In this case, at first I was tempted to just let it slip by, but then I admitted I didn't think the proposed change made a difference to the problem with the passage, and further tinkering would be needed and not within reviewer's purview in processing the submitted edit, so I decided the deadline really needed to be held to. --Pi zero (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I am just as happy. First, I get accused of being a Putin supporter, then an anti-Russia propagandist. --SVTCobra 01:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe that means I did hit the elusive NPOV with nobody happy. LOL. --SVTCobra 01:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
It does have a certain symmetry, although it would certainly be nice if one could satisfy everyone. --Pi zero (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Not in our lifetime, sadly. And especially not in these days, it seems. --SVTCobra 01:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)