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.

Omit needless words.
William Strunk, Jr.

Archive
2008–2010
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 –       2015



Reviews[edit]

Thanks for doing the review on the Russian air strikes article. I'm happy to note that on the main page I played a major part in three of the five lead articles and a fourth one in the list of ten at the top right. :) Green Giant (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 :-) --Pi zero (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you[edit]

I hereby award Pi Zero this barnstar for reviewing articles to filter out bias, plagiarism, and other such things from Wikinews' front page.

--Leugen9001 (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


Wikinews interviews painter Pricasso on his art and freedom of expression[edit]

It took me a while to research, do the interview, and put this all together. It was quite a coup to get a response back from the interviewee.

It's a nice piece related to freedom of speech and issues of censorship.

Do you think you could review it?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I might have a chance to in a few hours (likely publication would be after midnight UTC); I've done some preliminaries, but haven't gotten into the verification phase at all yet. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay sounds good. You've already reviewed the Background stuff before, for the most part. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems I've missed my time window for tonight. :-(  --Pi zero (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, okay, that's alright, what's it looking like now? :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Caricatures was my way of referring to multiple files, the portrait and video. Your edit is correct. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to edit over you while you're reviewing, but you could wikilink to w:The Picture (magazine), which is = Picture Magazine, and probably just correct it to be Picture magazine. Hope that's helpful, -- Cirt (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I wasn't sure whether that was the magazine he was referring to. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked, it's published in Australia and commonly referred to colloquially as Picture Magazine. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Although, you're correct, I haven't yet found the exact issue magazine he's referring to from 2006, so I'll defer to your judgement. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all of your four recommendations, and also about adding editor's notes. Shall I attempt to do that myself, or wait for you to do something? -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I'm trying to draft something very minimal myself; if you could take a look at what I do and provide feedback about it on the article take page, that'd be great. Of course I can't do much as reviewer, but the less we interrupt the flow of the interview, the better. --Pi zero (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds good to me, thank you very much! -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
For the image caption for the painting, would you please slightly tweak that to: ... the uploading of which Wales called "Harassment". Adding phrase "the uploading of", before "which", in the image caption. I think that also helps address directly one of your thoughtful recommendations. Sound good? -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful review.

I'm glad we were able to collaborate and compromise together so nicely.

I agree with all of your recommendations and editorial changes.

Thanks again,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You're totally correct[edit]

You're totally correct in your comments here.

Just note Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) loosened the talk page restrictions -- not I.

So hopefully we can have a constructive discussion, with the community, at a later point in time, for sure.

But no one has actually unblocked him yet.

Sound good?

-- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

If w:Template:2nd chance doesn't work -- there's always the notion on Wikipedia of w:WP:LASTCHANCE. Just food for thought, -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: As always, all we can do is move forward from where we are. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Heheh, agreed, hopefully. -- Cirt (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Just curious.......[edit]

....could you take a peak and see how many views my recent haunt article has received, please? Thanks!! --Bddpaux (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: It looks as if it received a few hundred on its first day of publication. I suspect it didn't do as well as it ought because it's never been pushed to our Facebook page — the folks at Facebook, you'll recall, went black-hat on me and said I couldn't keep my account unless I gave them privacy-invading information, so I no loner have a Facebook account and have been relying on the charity of others to push articles to there. The last article pushed to Facebook was the Oregon shootings one on October 4. --Pi zero (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm, well I've put it on my (personal) Facebook page......I wonder if I can push it out to the WN page.....don't see why I can't.... --Bddpaux (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, who maintains Wikinews' (can we call ours) account on social networking websites?
14.139.242.195 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
My memory (fading by now, since it's been a long time I've been deprived of Facebook access) is that one has to have admin privs on the Wikinews facebook page to do a new post there; we set me up with that once I had a fb account. BRS was doing some of it for a while, and Tom Morris did quite a bit of it but hasn't been available for it just lately. And from time to time brianmc, but we haven't heard much from him on-wiki lately. --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it seems they don't want to be named there because when I messaged, nobody replied.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm reminded that last time BRS tried to push something to fb there was some sort of technical problem; [1]. --Pi zero (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Podcast[edit]

I'm moving this to the proposals water cooler; it seems a community-wide thing, might get better visibility there, and surely ought to be easier to find later in discussion archives. --Pi zero (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Crash out vs fail to qualify[edit]

The difference, I thought, is obvious. The Netherlands were not in the European Championship 2016, since that takes place in 2016. They were attempting to qualify for it. They failed to qualify. You cannot crash out of a tournament that (a) hasn't started and (b) you're not in. Also, please call it the European Championship, not the Euro Cup, per all reliable sources. Thanks. Bencherlite (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on User talk:Gryllida? I was trying to restore the content. Now it is blank, after that vandalism.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice somebody had made an edit since the vandal did. Fixed now; thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pi zero[edit]

Thank you for your review and assistance in helping to edit the article. I would like to contribute more if that's ok. My next article will hopefully meet WikiNews standards more quickly! :) --LegereScire (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikinews. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Review step[edit]

Sorry there, at ISIS militant shoots, kills five at Saudi Arabia Shia mosque, was doing some copy-editing, didn't know you were going to review.

Hope I didn't edit-conflict or mess up anything for ya.

-- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: I was hoping I hadn't messed up anything for you. --Pi zero (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No, totally no worries, I hadn't started a review yet, was just in copy-editing stage. All is good! P.S. See my post on Technical Water Cooler for a very useful new tool !!! -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with if condition[edit]

In {{Football bookings}}, if the red cards shown are zero, that table cell should not be displayed. Or I can say, display the table cells only when called. How to modify that? Is that Lua?
14.139.242.195 (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies[edit]

Sorry about that edit, I didn't mean to change the meaning. --Rubbish computer (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Np. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ronaldo surpasses Raúl's record, becomes Real Madrids' top scorer‎[edit]

Hi Pi zero, you accepted my piping on the main page template to correct the typo, but didn't move the article. Are you willing to move it to Ronaldo surpasses Raúl's record, becomes Real Madrid's top scorer‎? Or is there a reason to keep this error? Thanks Bencherlite (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I saw no harm in the piping. It probably works more smoothly with the singular. Seems like "error" is a bit strong, since there's that whole singular-versus-plural-treatment-of-a-team can of worms. Renaming prior to Category:Archived can cause duplicate listings in some feeds, so I'm not real enthusiastic about doing that yet. --Pi zero (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Calling the team "Real Madrids" (the possessive apostrophe following the "s" means that it has been written as a plural) is most certainly an error. Why do you think it's correct? It's not a "Real Madrid is" versus "Real Madrid are" issue. Bencherlite (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about the construction "Real Madrids", which strikes me as very colloquial (though one could imagine an informal spoken context where it would pass without notice). It's about morphologically how to form the possessive of a noun that doesn't end with s and can be treated as either singular or plural depending on conceptual intent. If the noun were always understood to be plural, one would use apostrophe-s. If the noun were always understood to be singular, one would use apostrophe-s. But if the noun can be either number, and given that apostrophe-s and s-apostrophe would produce the same pronunciation anyway, the choice between the two becomes a convenient way to mark conceptual number, and I'm not rushing to produce duplicate entries in feeds over it — even though, as mentioned, I prefer the apostrophe-s construction here. --Pi zero (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it is precisely about the construction "Real Madrids' top scorer", which is only conceivably correctly if one would instead write "the top scorer of Real Madrids", which no one would. (I assume that when you say "very colloquial", you actually mean "wrong and unacceptable usage".) If you're right, though, then the internet must be littered with reliable sources saying "Real Madrids' stadium/player/season" (etc). Can you find any? (hint: the answer is "no", for the same reason that no-one would ever write "Liverpools'", "Chelseas'", "Belgiums'" or "Englands'"). And pronunciation is irrelevant because we are talking about the written word. Why are you letting the question of a newsfeed trump the accuracy of the article's title? Bencherlite (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I've tried to explain my position but, for whatever reason, evidently my message isn't coming through to you intact. --Pi zero (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. If only we could find reliable sources that support your stance, then your message might actually carry some weight. Without them, it doesn't. Bencherlite (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sehwag[edit]

Please see talk page before publishing - the title needs thought. Thanks, Bencherlite (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking extra extra measures to be sure I see it? Heh. Pointing out flaws in headlines pre-publish is appreciated, though; it's amazingly easy to overlook them. --Pi zero (talk)

Status[edit]

My review activity is likely to be somewhat lessened for a while, as I've got a head cold which is taking the edge off my sharpness of mental focus. --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hope you feel better soon !!! -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I recommend comfort food and gratuitous amounts of sleep, best cold treatments out there. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 01:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

re obit[edit]

No worries, go ahead ! -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reporting incident[edit]

Unexplained removal of content by Aliceroseg (talk · contribs)
14.139.242.195 (talk) 23:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It could have been done because the list is so very out-of-date (not maintained since about the time I arrived on the project, apparently). Admittedly, though, when doing something like that there should have been an explanation in the edit summary. --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
If we are going to remove it, I don't support this move. A week earlier, I was reading it and I find it important.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay. --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Last updated before I got here, by a couple of years. And, the means suggested for updating it won't work anymore, I'm guessing, because WN: is now short for Wikinews: so it turns up everything in project space, which it probably wasn't in 2007. It may be possible, once I have my dialog tools a bit more fully operational, to set up some kind of assistant for updating that list. --Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Help request: Airshow collision kills one in Dittingen, Switzerland[edit]

Please see Talk:Airshow collision kills one in Dittingen, Switzerland. Sorry I haven't used the official template but I was rather unclear about its effect. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered. (Quite a username, that.) I did see the note, yes. It raises a whole bunch of questions; I commented there. We certainly want to address the matter... appropriately. Figuring out what is appropriate seems the challenge. I've also pinged the reporter who wrote the article. --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Time magazine names Ahmed Mohamed to 'Most Influential Teens of 2015'[edit]

Hey Pi zero !

You reviewed the prior article I wrote on same subject -- and I cited that prior article for background/context info so this review should be pretty easy.

(Other than the stuff already-reviewed from the prior article, it just cites two sources to the new developments.)

And, after much research and contacting several photographers -- I was even able to secure via OTRS confirmation several free-use photos of the subject -- in his NASA t-shirt no less !!!

Could you take a look at it ?

I've been trying to help out the community lately and chipping in by copy-editing and reviewing several other articles.

Hope you're doing well,

-- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cirt. :-)  I did get over that cold, from a while back. I'm happy to take a look at this article, naturally I remember the earlier one, though I have some Wednesday-morning chores to do here first (just at a guess, might take me a couple of hours). And, I've certainly noticed your activity on Wikinews lately, with gratitude; getting up in the morning to see what's happened to the review queue while I was asleep and discovering there's (say) one less thing there because you came by is a cheering way to start the day. --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Heheh thanks for noticing. And I'm really glad you're feeling better !!! -- Cirt (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vivil (t · c · b)[edit]

This user creates redirects from User:KingVivil‎ to his userpage. Blood Red Sandman deleted the page. But he is up with this redirect again!
14.139.242.195 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact BRS deleted it twice, but the deleted version was a hard redirect, which I expect didn't work because the target page doesn't exist locally. --Pi zero (talk)

Knock. Knock.[edit]


Tefa-Halloween.png Werewolf.svg
Trick? No! We all want a treat.
Happy Halloween!
Face-devil-grin.svg

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14.139.242.195 (talkcontribs) 18:30, 30 October 2015

Happy Halloween. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimbo[edit]

Why did you delete my article? --Joskinfieds (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This project is for publishing neutral accurate news. --Pi zero (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

hello about my new news piece.[edit]

hi pi zero could you please help me when you get a chance and take a look at my short news article. thanks. i know your busy. --Fdena (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

i know your very busy with other matters but could you do anything to the article page to help it possibly grow? --Fdena (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My Article[edit]

Hello, I saw your comment on my article, so I was wondering, what should I edit to get it approved? Or is it not worth my time seeing how it technically not "fresh" as it was published a week ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tardis218 (talkcontribs) 22:56, 10 November 2015

Hi Tardis218. You'd need to refocus the article on a fresh event (perhaps the swearing-in, but even that is now two calendar days old) and find at least one source bearing witness that the event actually happened as had been anticipated, preferably two to better demonstrate relevance. Refocusing an article tends to be a difficult operation, even without the sourcing and relevance difficulties; a sufficiently experienced Wikinewsie might make it work, but since you're just learning the ropes, it may be better to look for another story that's just happened to write about. (When I set out to write my first article, iirc it took me some time before I found a story I really wanted to share — after which I then had to keep checking up on it for several hours before a second, independent source became available.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh, even now I couldn't find anything on if the meeting at the City Hall went as expected. And now thinking about it, I might not even write for Wikinews at all seeing how I'm untalented with writing anyhow, let alone write a semi-professional news article :P Ah well, thanks for the help. Tardis218 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tardis218: Well, obviously I can't make that decision for you, but in favor of news writing I'll point out that it's a good way to learn to be a better writer; it's a very forthright form, and teaches you to get straight to the point. We had a newcomer earlier this year who took to embedding html comments <!-- like this --> in their lede every few words to note which of the five Ws and H they'd just answered. :-)

Yeah, I suspected there wouldn't be any coverage of the swearing-in.

Btw, that first article I wrote? I think I hunted around on news services for a day or so, seeing various things go by and just not finding anything that excited me, and then I hit on a story that I just fell in love with instantly, and knew I'd found what I was looking for. The result:

"Robbery suspect flees on riding mower" — Wikinews, November 19, 2010.
(Would have been even better if I'd thought at the time to slap on a file photo from Commons of a riding mower.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Hahaha, that story is amazing. I'll have to look out for news stories in my area then, see if I find anything of interest to write about. :P Tardis218 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent Changes[edit]

Currently, the page looks like:

  • (User creation log); 10:32 . . User account Suraj Kumar Patel15 (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs) ‎
  • (User creation log); 10:31 . . User account Abhishek Pargaie (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs) ‎
  • (User creation log); 10:29 . . User account Ganesh S Bhatt (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs) ‎
  • (User creation log); 10:28 . . User account 3-m-c 2pola (Talk | contribs) was created ‎
  • (User creation log); 10:27 . . User account Sumanth Pradhan15 (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs) ‎
  • (User creation log); 08:13 . . User account Nani5953 (Talk | contribs) was created ‎


Is thas vandalism? Or how can someone create an account for someone else? (Indirect sock puppetry?)
14.139.242.195 (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

When an admin blocks an account, there are a bunch of options they can turn on or off, to fine-tune just what the block does and doesn't prevent. One of those is "prevent account creation" (see here). I guess this means that, while logged in, the user exercises the create-an-account facility. This information is recorded in the account creation log, e.g. here. As for what is going on with that particular set of account creations, I truly don't know, but it isn't necessarily something nefarious. For example, perhaps it's a teacher creating accounts for some students. It could be something that ought not be happening, but I see nothing about the account that would particularly suggest a problem. They've apparently made no edits on any Wikinews (let alone English Wikinews). I see Anand v21 has a user page on Sanskrit Wikiquote and Wiktionary; identical afaict; q:sa:सदस्यः:Anand v21, wikt:sa:सदस्यः:Anand v21; though I've really no idea what they say. --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Form to fill template parameters?[edit]

Was curious if we can have something like a form that would take input for parameters of a particular template, (something similar to Pi zero/dialog/demo)? Or do I need to use a language other than Wiki Markup?
14.139.242.195 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Something customized to a particular template, or for an arbitrary template? Something that shows what the template would look like with particular parameters, or something that helps put those parameters into a template on an actual page? --Pi zero (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the incomplete information, but if you see my talk page, I have a section Template:Football article which is the template for which I require the form. A static form is there in the next section. Instead of copying the static form, I wish to have a form in which we have text boxes (to avoid copying of the template). Moreover, after filling the parameters, the template is to be substituted. It is just an intermediate step to help writing faster. And till now, I have planned it only as my subpage.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Without writing something to use the dialog tools (akin to the demo, but I suppose one could add on a facility for applying the results somewhere), one can copy a pattern to somewhere and fill it in — we've got a pattern set up in the documentation for {{topic cat}} just so it can be copy-and-pasted. Such a thing could be copied into an article directly, copied onto a scratchpad, or used in Special:ExpandTemplates. --Pi zero (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Trump OR[edit]

Having pulled the JSON data, and spotted an MP near the top, I decided to actually check that - so just put in a little late OR on the article. There's a lot of them. :D --Brian McNeil / talk 21:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, (off topic): Did anyone notice that headlines starts with 'U' in the last 6 out of 10 published articles! Plus, there are 2 waiting in the queue. We aren't maintaining a NPOV for the other letters :P
14.139.242.195 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but there's a difference between NPOV on Wikinews vs Wikipedia. We should be okay as long as we don't mislead our readers into thinking most news starts with "U", whereas Wikipedian neutrality calls, as I recall, for "balance". That probably means the proportion of articles starting with "U" should be the same as the proportion of English words starting with "U"; alternatively, perhaps they'd hold a protracted debate on the question. :-P  --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Protracted debate? Heh. They'd write a few million words on the topic, complete with statistical analyses of data dumps. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is proving incredibly popular on Facebook. Up less than 3 hours, and over 10K views, 170+ likes, and 35 shares. A lot of articles are lucky to get half that in a full 24 hours. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It is 59 shares now!
14.139.242.195 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Query[edit]

Hi, do you have a form of speedy deletion on here? Only, The Death of Kim Kardashian appears to be a blatant hoax. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: WN:CSD#A8 is what you are looking for? Plus, further reading, you can peep in at {{delete}} for usage of the template. And of course Wikinews:Criteria for speedy deletion.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Category rename suggestion[edit]

[[:Category:Champions League]] ought to be Category:UEFA Champions League, as per Category:2008-09 UEFA Champions League season‎ and Category:UEFA Champions League Match Reports (which looks as though it has too many capital letters, and is probably incomplete, but there we go...). Where does one propose a category rename around here? Bencherlite (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I don't anticipate any serious objections, and category renames are better done sooner than later since the amount of work increases with use. Done. --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Did template work?[edit]

Did it help in checking the details? Did it take less time, or it was no good? Should we think about it or discard the thoughts?
117.212.219.27 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Afaict, it didn't really impact the review, one way or another. --Pi zero (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(Wikinews) hawkip[edit]

OK thanks for the comment, I would have saw the article and be quite confused. Anyway, I'm going to work on some articles offline for a bit, following by that link, I'll have to submit regularly, I think once every couple of days. But yeah, I think I'll get there. Also, I'm not quite sure what part of my article was copyright, so I would like to know that please for future reference.

Yours indubitably.Loomhigh223555 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

N Korea[edit]

Is there a way we can get this news article going? It's big news. thank you. --WagonsofTruth (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@WagonsofTruth:The only way publishing the article is first complete the story maintaining the WN:Style guide by at least writing the article for a minimal WN:LENGTH. Well, it is all over the internet.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @WagonsofTruth: Articles tend to get written by one person, in practice. Then they get reviewed by someone independent of authorship of the article; that's the first pillar at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing.

There's a good tutorial on writing an article at WN:Writing an article. --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'am just afraid the article may go stale. --WagonsofTruth (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@WagonsofTruth: That can happen, yes. It's quite common for folks to first come to Wikinews when they've got something they really want covered, only to discover that contributing to Wikinews has an initial learning curve (and, even worse, that sort of story is likely to be "breaking", i.e., changing rapidly, which is the most difficult sort of thing to handle as synthesis using Wikinews's workflow model). A reporter's first Wikinews article is a major learning experience, and it's not at all uncommon that the first article itself never does reach publication — though once a reporter learns the basics of how to write Wikinews articles it can (for many people, anyway) get quite easy. One veteran Wikinewsie has recommended 'don't marry the article' — try to make an article work, but if it doesn't be prepared to move on to another. Only that doesn't sit well when the reporter came here in the first place exactly because they have a story they really want to cover! --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Lachmann[edit]

Dear Pi zero. I currently work on the article about American sociologist Richard Lachmann in Russian Wiki. It has detailed analyse of his works but lack bio information. So I am going to interview him for WikiNews. I prepared questions (here), but my English very far from free level. Could you check my mistakes and correct them? Interview will be translated in Russian for Russian WikiNews and maybe can be used for English WikiNews as well. Hope for your understanding. Best regards. --Алый Король (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Алый Король: I'll try to help. I can offer three kinds of feedback for you atm.

First, I've done some basic proofreading of the linked page of questions. I tried not to change the meaning, but you should look over what I did carefully. I wasn't absolutely certain what you intended to mean in some places. I also tried to leave your style of wording unchanged; there are some passages that sound a little awkward to a native English speaker, but they are perfectly understandable so I left them alone.

Second, I wondered just a bit about neutrality a little, here and there. It's important that en.wn doesn't advocate a position on any particular issue. I didn't change things for neutrality, when editing the page, but I wondered a little on one or two questions. I did make one change, on the last bit about Wikipedia: we publish things as news, not for the sake of Wikipedia. In fact, English Wikipedia has always refused to admit that English Wikinews is a reliable source of information; so we concentrate on being a reliable news source, and let Wikipedia worry about its own policies. I trimmed your words a little on that item; it's just a suggestion.

If we're trying for a publication of original reporting on English Wikinews, we'll need good documentation.

  • Prepare before an interview to record it well so you'll have plenty of documentation.
  • The article itself needs reporter's notes on the article talk page, explaining when and how the interview was done, including how it was documented.
  • If there were emails involved, they should all be forwarded to scoop (that's "scoop at wikinewsie dot org"). Anything that contains private information, so that it should not be posted on the public wiki, should also be emailed to scoop. If you are sending things to scoop, also mention, in your reporter's notes on the article talk page, that you are doing so.
  • We need something to check the interview against. Whatever means you use to record the interview (including email, as just mentioned), we need to see the original so we can check the article against it. For example, whatever form the article is recorded in, there is usually some cleaning up that goes on for the published article; we should be able to check that we agree with how that was done.
  • An interview article has an introduction that gives some explanation of who the interviewee is and, at least, says that they 'agreed to answer some questions for Wikinews' or some such words. Any background facts stated there need to be verified during review for publication; so you should provide source citations in a Sources section at the bottom of the article to verify all background information, just as we would for a synthesis article.
  • The goal of all this is that everything in the article can be verified from the documentation provided. We don't claim that everything they said is true, but we do need documentation that they said what we report they said. When we say something is true, we need documentation that it is true.
--Pi zero (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
That's amazing. Thank you very much. The interview will be conducted via email, so I should send CC to scoop at wikinewsie (is it misprint? wikinews?) dot org? --Алый Король (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
@Алый Король: yes. scoop at wikinewsie dot org. (We set up the wikinewsie dot org domain, years ago, to host a number of things we needed for our original reporting, when the WMF made it clear they were not willing to have those things done under their auspices.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thank you very much. I will forward my letter to scoop and will ask him to make the same. I really appreciate all the help you've given me. --Алый Король (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent copy to scoop (the first delivery failed, the second seems to be OK). Could you check it or you don't have access? --Алый Король (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Алый Король: I received three emails from you through the scoop mailing list; the first and third had the questions attachment, the second was just a test. Sometimes people who send to scoop get "failure" messages, not because the message didn't get to scoop, but because a few people with wikinewsie email accounts haven't cleaned out their mailboxes, so that their mailboxes overflow and the message can't be delivered to them.

One concern. There's a note at page Wikinews:Original reporting,

[...] you must introduce yourself as an independent or freelance reporter. You may, of course, inform the source where you hope to publish, but please ensure they understand in this case that your own views and activities are not representative of anyone else who uses Wikinews, nor does the reputation of Wikinews, or lack of reputation of Wikinews, reflect on yourself.
Don't give the interviewee the impression that the interview is guaranteed to be published on English Wikinews. Our review process (see first pillar at WN:PILLARS) wouldn't really have teeth if publication could be guaranteed ahead of time; and if somehow an interview didn't get published after the interviewee thought that had been promised, it could create bad feelings. --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I can guarantee that it will be published in Russian WikiNews. Anyway, it's not that kind of interview that was taken without purpose. It has obvious purpose: completing GA for Wiki, so I don't see any reason why it could be refused. Anyway, I got it, thanks for explaining. Next time I will pay more attention on this. If everithing are good and I success with interview, I will try to do the same for two other scholars. --Алый Король (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to review[edit]

See Detroit teachers stage sickout to protest working conditions as Obama visits Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Miami doctor publicly apologizes for Uber misconduct[edit]

I've tried to beat this into shape, but feel I've taken enough involvement to disqualify me from review. You'll see that when you look at RC. ;) --Brian McNeil / talk 23:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Brian McNeil: My natural instinct was to object to using an exclusive interview by another news org as the focus, but I didn't act on the impulse because I saw you were editing it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Comprises a pretty small part of the overall article. Additionally, having just re-checked the ABC source they don't refer to their interview as "exclusive"; they might in the video footage, but not in the written report which I worked from. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
At this moment, I'm definitely not up to review-weight decisions. (Strange to realize how much less capacity I have now for late-night reviewing than just a few years ago. :-S ) --Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For review[edit]

Hi Pi Zero, I hope you find the time to make a review of my news here. Thanks in advance.--FCastroACE (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan: Suicide bomber on a motorbike kills eight and injures 20[edit]

All the info i can really find for now so i submitted it for review sorry if its not much. --Widemanowlz (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Jamie-Lynn Sigler discussing having MS review[edit]

Thank you for accurately and justly reviewing my article on Jamie-Lynn Sigler. I heard the news on Friday, February 5, 2016, but after doing shrewd research online I found out that she revealed having the disease in January 2016. When I heard of the news, I could not help but feel sorry for her. And after doing research, I also found out that people who have MS typically get it at 34, so I felt additionally sorry.

I partially agree with your comments. You said that a number of passages are copied from the source(s) that I had and I copied nothing except the quotes from the article. I would never intentionally plagiarize someone's material.

Secondly, you said the headline would have better been focused explicitly on the announcement and in the opening paragraph it says "Nine years after filming the last scene of the The Sopranos, 34-year old Jamie-Lynn Sigler reveals her diagnosis with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)."

However, I agree that it was old and no longer fresh (so I will not be submitting it for another review. Also, it was very short, most paragraphs were three sentences but I did not have much time to read both articles. Maybe, I'll have more time next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eurocus47 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 9 February 2016‎

It's not about intent. I compared your article with the source articles, looking for actual similarities. There's some advice on avoiding such similarities at pillar WN:PILLARS#own (the advice is very compact; everything on that page is very compact; but the advice is there). Wikinews has to be vigorous about the issue of copyright, because commercial news orgs are vigorous about it (as page WN:Plagiarism notes).

The headline is the name of the page; the lede is the first paragraph of the article.

It's a sad story, yes. I understand your wanting to cover it. Naturally, on an all-volunteer news project a story doesn't get covered unless there's a volunteer writer who wants to cover it.

I do recommend WN:PILLARS and WN:WRITE as useful guidance for aspiring Wikinews writers. :-)  Wikinews writing gets easier once you get past our initial learning curve, and we try to help folks up it. Feel free to ask questions. --Pi zero (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)