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.

We are, heart and soul, friends to the freedom of the press. ... It is a precious pest, and a necessary mischief, and there would be no liberty without it.
Fisher Ames

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

Was that okay?[edit]

If I edit someone elses started article in the interval of {{review}} and {{under review}}? Let me know if that is fine or not. This time I did so that some of your time would be saved in the maintenance of source dates and all.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 15:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That was fine. I appreciate the help. --Pi zero (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I thought that wasn't allowed. Can you guide me to an WN guideline of what rights I have while doing such edits?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I don't believe there is a guideline about it. It's more of a social thing; do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Articles aren't "owned"; it's a wiki, anyone can edit. Doing copyedits on someone else's article can be helpful both to them and to whoever later reviews the article, provided of course that your copyedits are correct. Making major changes... well, depending on the circumstances it may be appropriate or inappropriate. There was a case earlier this year where two Wikinewsies had both written synthesis articles about the same event (the UK general election, I think), and they communicated and agreed to merge one article into the other, and the author of the one that was being merged did a massive edit of the one being submitted. Now, you'd have to be very careful about editing somebody else's original reporting article, because in some cases the exact way they worded things may be based on their personal experience and you simply don't know (but usually it'd still be okay to, say, correct a spelling error, and it's hard to imagine any situation where it wouldn't be okay to fix a broken template call). --Pi zero (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


At your decision to oppose my participation on Wikinews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I don't oppose your participation on Wikinews. I oppose your accreditation, which is a different thing. I've been meaning to write a brief comment of explanation to go with my oppose vote at the nomination page. --Pi zero (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see what the difference is. I can't post to Wikinews without accreditation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
You have done so. Others do so. --Pi zero (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I cannot. I must have accreditation to attend events. Without Wikinews accreditation, I have had to accept accreditation from another organisation. And that means I then cannot post to Wikinews at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I'm not sure which events you want to cover but I've only ever used accreditation for stadium events (ie. Australia's Queensland Roar through to A-League football preliminary final. All of the articles I've done covering the Sunshine Coast Rugby Union didn't need accreditation to cover. They're local events. --RockerballAustralia contribs 10:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Me too. The event I am going to cover is the Paralympic Games, and accreditation is required. But once I accept accreditation, I won't be able to write on Wikinews about any events at all, including local ones. Please support my accreditation request. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi Pi zero, I performed a Mass deletion of pages added by Nama33. I think you will remember all those stupid templates the user created. The account was globally locked, so I assume there has been some cross-wiki abuse. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. (Globally locked? Huh.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Right. "Locked" not "Blocked" ... IDK ... --SVTCobra 19:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to interrupt, but what is the difference between blocked and locked?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Afaik the difference is that blocking is done by an admin on an individual project, whereas locking is done by a steward and applies to all WMF projects. There's a page meta:Global locks. --Pi zero (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I use this image?[edit]

This one?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not enthusiastic about doing so. It's a non-free image with McDonald's advertising all over it; we're better off sticking with something on Commons. --Pi zero (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that article is done, I guess. But I feel is isn't good :(
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Something is wrong[edit]

This article has the parameter of time in {{Footballbox}} which is displayed. But this isn't working here. Why so?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Temporarily used <br> thing.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that changed! That parameter isn't working anywhere!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"unauthorized bot"[edit]

Hello. I see you blocked my bot with the reason of "unauthorized bot". This does not seem to be true (unless I'm wrong), per the policy on this wiki. The bot task falls under "maintain interlanguage links" and is currently approved on m:SRB. As for wikibooks, whether you block it or not doesn't make any difference (or very little difference); since it's not a global bot wiki, my bot (by default) would not run at all, though I might request for a local bot flag later. :P Does this clarify the issue? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: en.wn policy prohibits bots from operating on en.wn without prior approval by the en.wn community. If somebody has us on some list of wikis where they permit global bots to run, then by doing so they are in violation of en.wn policy. --Pi zero (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please check Wikinews:Global_bots and explain how running a global bot, within the scope of your own global bot policy, violate the policies on this wiki. The list is m:Special:WikiSets/2 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(offtopic) And if you need some tools for mass reverting, try hoo man's smart rollback tool. I know rolling back hundreds of edits can be a severe pain --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(offtopic: I'll keep that tool in mind; thanks. My guess is we don't do mass reversions often enough to justify a specialized js script for it, though eventually we may have an assistant for such; but it's good to be aware of what's available. I do appreciate the thought, and it may yet prove useful.)
Our global bot policy, which you cite, allows maintaining interlanguage links, but this bot was not maintaining them; it was deleting them. --Pi zero (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I suddenly found myself unable to find a very clear policy on this matter. What I can find is that all those nearly-identical tasks were also approved globally for Addbot, Legobot, KLBot2, SamoaBot and etc, under the assumption of "removing interlanguage links to from pages if the link is already on Wikidata" falls under "maintaining interlanguage links" (which seems to be what most people agrees on). Those global bots were approved in 2013, but went inactive before wikinews became supported by wikidata (so interlanguage links remained on wikinews). I'll ask for clarification of the meta global bot policy from stewards if necessary --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: English Wikinews considered whether or not to remove local interwiki markup when the information is being generated by Wikidata, and decided not to. There are several reasons for not wanting to deliberately increase one's dependence on Wikidata for interwikis; but the relevant point here is that English Wikinews does not consider those removals to fall under maintaining interwikis. If somebody elsewhere has made a different decision, although I think they're making a mistake by failing to recognize the inherent unsuitability of the Wikidatan design for generating interwikis, it has in any case no bearing on whether or not the bot operates locally. (To the best of my recollection, I'm not even the first en.wn admin to block a global bot on the grounds that removing these interwikis is not "maintenance" here.) --Pi zero (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
In that case, I would strongly suggest to un-approve Wikinews:Global_bots and opt-out of global bot entirely. I'm not the first global bot operator to understand otherwise. (Nor the last I believe) :) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I do take your point. I do find the whole situation appalling. When that policy was adopted on Wikinews evidently it was presumed that global bots would be designed based on intelligent principles. Not anticipating that the global-bot community would be infected by a truly bad idea like deleting local interwikis in favor of Wikidata-generated ones. Just one more instance of the highly long-term-destructive forms of centralization favored by the Foundation these days. :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


Sir, I feel like I am being rude these days. And my wordings don't sound like requesting.I am sorry for it. I just wanted to let you know that the template was again placed in between the sources. Is it done by the easy peer review sort of thing? Is it a bug?
Well, I guess, till I adjust a bit in my college, I will take a Wikibreak. Thank you for adding the image to article as well.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 05:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Yes, it's a bug in the review gadget. We've known about it for years, but the code of the gadget is sufficiently difficult that even the author of the gadget professes to be afraid to tamper with it. So we're waiting until, hopefully, my dialog tools advanced enough that we can write a review assistant using them, which hopefully we will be able to make fixes to at need. --Pi zero (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Is it necessary to use it? Can't we just type it in normal Edit Source.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 06:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The review gadget is actually a pretty sophisticated piece of software, although the things it does aren't very obvious to someone who isn't a reviewer. It has a panel for checking off which of the five criteria are 'passed' or 'not ready' versus 'unreviewed', places for comments on individual criteria when they're not ready, a place for general comments, it edits the article page and formats and places a template on the talk page, and when publishing it also sights the article and invokes the make-lead tool with the title of the newly published article. Although it's possible to do all that by hand, it's quite a chore and can't be done with certain flourishes that the tool makes look easy. The tool is well worth using even though it has a few quirks. --Pi zero (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I was just saying, when the only command left is publish, reviewers can add the template manually.
Anyways, I have a long way to go. I do want to be a reviewer, but I don't qualify at this moment. But, after my break, please introduce me to it.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 08:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(outdent) Took a look on this; simple enough: the regex "regex_sources" for finding {{source}} blocks is broken, causing it to recognize {{source| but not when a linebreak is between "e" and "|". Adding a "\s*" between "|[sS]ourceReg)" and "\|[^}]*" should fix the problem. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, is that the problem in this particular case? Huh. That's not even the usual reason for the gadget to misplace the tag. The more usual one, also probably in the same regex, involves assuming that the last {{source}} template on the page doesn't have any other template calls embedded inside it. In theory, yes, the regex could be generalized; maybe I'll actually do that at some point, but my experience of js is that it's the single most cantankerous language I've ever had the misfortune to have to use, and any effort poured into ad-hoc fixes to it would be better spent creating a way to avoid having to use it in future. Still... I'm very glad to know about that second bug in the regex; if I ever got around to tampering with the regex and failed to fix a second problem with it at the same time, that would be very annoying. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Right, finding corresponding end brackets of a template (with embedded template calls) with a single regex requires recursion, which is simply not supported in javascript. I thought of two ways to overcome this:
  1. Go the opposite way: As Template:Publish/doc states it has to be placed immediately before the categories, you can, instead of finding the last of {{source}}, find the first of category links. The category syntax is much simpler, as it has to be within one line and no other end brackets may be embedded inside. The downside of this is that any category link within the main content will break the script.
  2. The more complicated way of dealing with {{source}}: on the last match, check if any other "{{<nowiki>" is embedded inside the match, other than "<nowiki>{{source" (this can probably be done with [^}]* as a match group). If the result is yes, an embedded template call is likely inside. In that case, go back to the start of the last {{source}} and change every "{{" "}}" pairs, with no other brackets in the middle, to some other sort of brackets that won't break the parsing (eg. (( and ))). You might need to make a copy of page text to do this safely. When the template name matches "(?:[sS]ource(-pr|-science)?|[aA]pasource|[pP]apersource|[oO]rsource|[sS]ourceReg)" (as in "regex_sources"), you can get the correct index of the end brackets. The downside is that if someone disable some brackets somehow (eg with nowiki or comments), unbalancing them, the result may either be erroneous (again) or no end brackets will be found at all for the {{source}}. Hope this helps ;) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hm. Well,
  • The category-oriented approach seems most likely, if one were willing to make that big a change to working code in a language as aggressively error-prone as js. Currently iirc the rule tries to be, put the tag after the last {{source}} citation on the page; so instead, start at the end of the page and skip backward over any categories but not over anything else.
  • If taking a more minimalist-change approach, I note it's unlikely there'd be more than one level of embedding of template calls within a {{source}} citation. I've yet to see an example of multiple levels of embedded templates within a {{source}} citation; figure I've examined a few thousand articles closely enough to have noticed such a thing if it were in those articles. Logically, I can just about imagine a somewhat bizarre set of circumstances where one might want to do such a thing, but it would probably still only go to a second level of embedding. Alternatively, one could simply wait till my dialog tools are fully deployed and code it using wikilisp, which has primitive parsing facilities not limited to finite-depth nesting.
The recognition of {{source}} template calls isn't the only bug in the gadget's current placement, though. It also tends to incorrectly place the tag before the optional External links section that sometimes follows the Sources section. Which seems to favor the categories-at-end-of-page approach. --Pi zero (talk) 12:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

{{FC Barcelona}}[edit]

Shall we have a news box of FC Barcelona? And, actually, what is the various criteria for having that news box?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 09:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You mean an infobox? I'm not aware of explicitly stated criteria for creating such things (though I suppose there might be sine interesting discussion somewhere in the archives of requests-for-deletion, where somebody created an infobox that others disapproved of, in days of yore). Infoboxen are usually fairly broad, to maximize interest, though. I don't believe there is any precedent for creating one for a specific team; a specific sport, such as {{football}}, yes, but not a specific team. --Pi zero (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I understand. And yes! I meant infobox. But I don't know why it is called so Puzzled.svg It provides news!
Well, it's a shortening of "information box". I see Wikipedia had infoboxes before Wikinews was created in late 2004. (I'm bemused that Wiktionary has an entry for infobox, although it doesn't mention the often-used non-standard plural infoboxen.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

AS Roma[edit]

I request you to create AS Roma category as well.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 10:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.
Btw, I expect to be out for most of the morning (i.e., the next six hours or so), which likely won't leave room for a review for at least that long... although I might be able to squeeze in creating a category. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Um, but after 6 hours, I hope that article doesn't get stale!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it'll be okay. Sooner is better, of course, but I don't think this'll be intolerable. As I understand, the game was on Wednesday.
The AS Roma category turns out to be less straightforward than I hoped, because a keyword search on "Roma" also turns up articles on Romani, and I should probably sort out a category for them while I'm about it. --Pi zero (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
After the article is either published or deleted, please add a block for me that prevents me from creating new pages. If new article can't be created type of block doesn't exist, please add an appropriate block. I will let you know the duration after six hours. I requested block for exams on WP, but then I used to edit through IP. Though I might write some articles (like on talk page, and that can be further published by copying-modifying-{{publish}}).
But, don't you make some articles? Or a reviewer don't have the right?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have occasionally written articles, but on one hand there's usually something else I should be doing on Wikinews (building the infrastructure to make things work better for everyone in future), and on the other hand I'd want to arrange ahead of time to make sure there'd be another reviewer available to review what I write (which I have done in the past). --Pi zero (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Category:AS Roma created. --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! :)
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Category request[edit]

I request you to make Barclays Premier League, Tottenham Hotspur and Tottenham's category. (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Hi. How is it possible that I can not leave a reply here? It seems that 'Spanish Cyberbulling' has started in order to clean up corrupted journalists' reputation. The number of 'sources' about that matter is HUGE. In addition to that, you received a letter communication signed from Fernando Campos certifying the authenticity of the case AGAINST Almudena Ariza. This is an independent media outlet. Do not be afraid of being independent. --ACE1NYC (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that if you don't use VisualEditor you'll have no problem. That's just a guess, though. Since I haven't had the stomach to use VisualEditor [on this project] yet, I don't know for sure. I suppose I'll have to try it soon, though, in order to determine how badly it messes things up.
The English Wikinews article was published, and it'll stay published. If enough evidence were accumulated showing that the story is somehow in error, we would issue a {{correction}}, but the article would still be there, with the {{correction}} prominently displayed. It would require substantial evidence, though. Note my conservative remark on the article's collaboration page, saying I should have been more cautious in vetting the sources of the article. That says nothing directly about the legitimacy of the story. Also note that the article does not endorse the accusations described therein. We would issue a {{correction}} if facts in the article were shown to be false; but if the accusations were shown to be false that would not warrant a {{correction}} since we never claimed they were true. For example, though, we would issue a correction if it were shown that ACE was not founded in 1967. --Pi zero (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Is there any way to publish a reply here? I don't know how to avoid the VisualEditor.--Alpha Omeg (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, you shouldn't be trying to edit that page. What should happen is that if you view the page, after a while (perhaps several seconds, as the Foundation has been fooling around with the interface in ways that have slowed everything down), the page will settle down and provide a button for "start a new discussion" and controls under individual comments for replying to them. I gather somebody else had a problem posting a comment from a mobile device last night; I'm not sure what's going on there. Turning off VisualEditor, if it's possible at all, would probably be somewhere under Special:Preferences. At some point we're going to have to investigate the mobile interface more closely to see whether something is broken and whether or not it's something we can fix.
Are you trying to start a new comment thread there, or reply to one of the exiting ones (and if reply, to which one)? --Pi zero (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Trying to answer the first one. Really the VisualEditor is off and not working in mobile mode, don't understand the problem.--Alpha Omeg (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Two slain in knife attack at Swedish IKEA furniture retailer[edit]

Hi Pi zero, I don't know if you will be the one reviewing my article, but it seems likely. I just wanted to point out that I helped with the translations on the Collab page. Also, I wanted to thank you for the cleanup on the article that I reviewed. I was a little rusty with the date format. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


Apologies for removing them; can I ask why though? Green Giant (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Green Giant: (I think, btw, it's great you're giving positive attention to various of our local infrastructure.)
English Wikinews (and English Wikibooks, though as I recall the discussion was more ambiguous there in terms of future decisions) have chosen not to remove local interwikis. I note that, to be frank, Wikidata is fundamentally unsuited to be given sole responsibility for generating interwikis:
  • it maximizes damage caused by both accidents and vandalism while minimizing opportunities to detect and correct such damage;
  • it severely degrades local control over local concerns (not unrelated to the first point), with a corresponding, subtle, long-term degredation of local morale;
  • its structure is governed by considerations contrary to the goal of generating useful interwikis, which systematically minimize interwikis generated (in contrast to the pre-existing system of interwiki bots, which missed things rather randomly rather than systematically, and its failings could be fixed about as easily as they could be detected);
  • and, for good measure, its structure is heavily encyclopedic (although not quite suited to automatic interwiki-generation even for Wikipedia).
I think that's the major points, though I might be forgetting something. There are subtleties, of course, which are mostly just embellishments that follow from the fundamental principles; such as the impracticality of local projects monitoring their interwikis after control is turned over to Wikidata, which might seem superficially to be a consequence of Wikidata-change notification granularity (the local project is informed of every change to the linked Wikidata item, while almost none of those changes are ever relevant to interwikis), but is more realistically a practical consequence of moving fundamentally local information about interwikis off of the local project.
I admit I've gotten rather disgusted, over time, with the routine presentation of a false dichotomy between the old system of interwiki bots, and the new system of automatic interwiki generation by Wikidata. As I remarked, the old system had problems and the new system has different problems; and if one actually did have to choose between the two, the old system would be a more effective way to deliver useful interwikis because its failings are haphazard and reparable whereas the new system's failing are systematic and unavoidable. Moreover, these problems were both foreseeable and avoidable. Here's an example of a system that would combine the strengths of local projects with the strengths of Wikidata: Each local page has, along with its local interwiki markup, a list of related Wikidata items. Locally marked interwikis take first precedence, followed by interwikis from the first-listed Wikidata item, then from the second-listed, etc. Discrepancies between locally marked interwikis and Wikidata-generated interwikis (both discrepancies of local commission and omission) are flagged out for local consideration, so that, at local users' leisure, each discrepancy can be locally dealt with either by locally adopting the Wikidata-based recommendation, or recommending local information to Wikidata, or making a local note that the discrepancy is deliberate and appropriate (which presumably would last only as long as both the local and Wikidata halves of the discrepancy remain unchanged). You'd have local control (with its associated morale boost from local users knowing that their contributions matter), minimization of damage from mistakes/vandalism at Wikidata, maximization of benefit-of-many-eyeballs both for Wikidata and local pages. And probably some other advantages I'm forgetting atm. --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed answer. I think I would agree with the suggestion that Wikidata has a lot of problems; personally I think the root cause is that anonymous IPs are allowed to change links. I'm not opposed to people editing anonymously on content wikis but I don't see why the linking can't be restricted to uses with autopatrolled. I also don't see a good reason for articles to be linked straightaway as soon as they are created. An example is the recent Funtime Hologram, which had the item d:Q20734053, created by the same user. When I nominated the item for deletion, it had to wait until the Wikinews article was deleted. I don't think it would hurt for us to wait until an article is reviewed before a Wikidata item is created, but what can you do? The major pre-Wikidata problem I recall was the competing bots that used to rearrange the interwikis to the order preferred by their operators. :) Green Giant (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Heh. I'd forgotten about that ordering problem.

A specific problem I've encountered repeatedly, and have even seen on Wikipedia (sadly I don't remember what article), is that because Wikidata is interested in making as many distinctions as possible, whereas interwikis exist to be useful to the user viewing a page, Wikidata often forces articles to omit whole groups of interwikis that should be provided. The first example I encountered is en.wn's Category:Guantanamo Bay, which covers in a single category the bay, the US territorial control at the bay, the naval bay in the US territorial control, and the detention camp on the naval base. From the Wikidatan perspective each of those should be a different item, and the Wikinews category can only be linked to one of those items — systematically depriving the Wikinews category of incoming Wikidata-generated interwikis for any of the other items that it actually covers. Other instances I can think of off-hand are Category:Palestine and Category:Donetsk. As I say, though, I also noted an example on en.wp.

As is probably clear by now, I see this as a specific symptom of a far more primordial problem. But it's still a major specific problem, and when I've occasionally mentioned it on Wikidata I've gotten thunderous silence. --Pi zero (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

71 year old woman shot in leg[edit]

Could you review this please? Or how much more information does it need to be published? Thank you. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

I saw you removed the part about the spy agency being the source. Call me crazy, but I swear the BBC article has changed even though they say it is the same for 7 hours. The whole section about "Kim Jong-un and the Forest" wasn't there either, unless I am losing my marbles. Anyway, the Reuters/SMH source says "unnamed source" (2nd paragraph) so we can go with that. --SVTCobra 18:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Much of the mainstream press seems to have no compunction about rewriting history. Anyway, okay, unnamed source it is. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I forgot how to use the < > to leave notes inside for editors. Hopefully, I can remember. I couldn't find anything on it in the help pages. I hope I was able to "save" the Houston article. Since you've reviewed it twice before, you probably know the material as well as I do and with any luck, it won't require a great deal of your time to review it. There is a note on the collab page regarding a discrepancy in direct quotes in two sources. I will try my hand at DragonFire's new article, though I wasn't able to persuade him to make a few changes via collab. Cheers. --SVTCobra 19:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Malaysia says debris found in Maldives could be from MH370[edit]

I published DragonFire1024's article, manually, ofc. How do I determine the RevID of a particular version of an article? I just put 'unknown' for now. Also, I assumed that info that was from the previous articles was ok for him to include. And, when you have time, I would like to talk to you about WN:FU for images and the current policy/interpretation of said policy. Cheers --SVTCobra 23:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)--SVTCobra 23:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • The method I know of to determine the revid: call up the page history, and click on the revision whose id you want to know. When that revision is displayed (as a particular revision, rather than as the-most-recent, or even the-most-recent-sighted), the revid will be in the url.
  • As long as a previous article is listed under Related news, it can be reused freely, yes. It's all already been reviewed, after all; and our licensing allows reuse in just such a way. Somebody (BRS?) has quipped that Related news is Wikinews articles used as sources.
  • It's my understanding that we can use stuff under fair use if it's relevant and is not from a competing news org. I'm under the impression those pictures are not from a competing news org (am I wrong?). It seems like they'd be highly relevant; DragonFire had asked my opinion on IRC re Fair Use of those images, and I gave my honest opinion that it seemed to me they ought to be allowable since they're, as I say, relevant and not from a competing news org. Do I gather correctly that you have doubts (unless you outright disagree)? I admit I haven't carefully reread our FU page in several years. I'm wondering what the basis of your doubts-or-disagreement would be. (I'm just starting to take a look at the Houston article.)
--Pi zero (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
1) Ah, yes, the URL has the rev-id. Thanks
2) Yes, I believe that too, and I use related (or used to, back in the day). But I just wanted you to know that we are building a house, since Jason is wanton for including lots of 'old' info. If one of the oldest sources or reviews don't pan out, it could tear down the entire series. Oh, BRS ... he used to be the expert on Aviation Disasters ... I remember "Mr. Sandman" ... where is he now with all this MH370 stuff?  ;-)
3) Regarding images, there was a while that there was extreme scrutiny on FU. I think it spilled over from WP. Things like "if a free version of the image can be taken, then it is not Fair-Use" was prevalent. Meanwhile, we, as a news reporters are not (and should not) be held to that standard. Our competitors (i.e. "normal" news) are using images and video from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, etc. all the time. Not once have they been sued for copyright violations when it comes to reporting the news. There is indeed a different standard for news and fair-use, but the copyright police from Wikipedia and Commons hammered Wikinews for a long time.
Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was very rigorous about those earlier articles. I expect you were very rigorous about the third. Accidents are possible, sure. Cumulative reporting like this — which I understand is a standard technique in professional journalism — makes it possible to produce much more thorough articles for the amount of effort by writer and reviewer. I admit, it gives me pause when someone uses a Wikinews from before our review system, but that almost never happens.

Commons, and presumably Wikipedia, has gone through periods when people were being irrationally deletionist. It's of paramount importance to disallow images belonging to competing news orgs; and we'd really rather use free images because we want anyone who syndicates our articles to have no problems with the images; but if it's clear of news orgs and there's a valid need, as you say, news writing is different from encyclopedic writing. --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Huge explosions in Tianjin, China[edit]

Hi. We need something for this. The editor is not necessarily wrong. The numbers are always changing in these situations. In the old days, we let random people update them and then when the dust settled, we'd get an accurate number and other facts and archive the article. That was obviously before all the review/oversight tools. I don't know what you think we should do? I can start a new article, and ask them to edit that. Ideas?--SVTCobra 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I'm honestly unsure, myself. You may notice, I didn't sight my reversion; and I'm not familiar with the material, which you are. We do have a principle about not allowing post-publish changes that add up to a different focus, but where to draw the line short of that, I don't recall any precedent. Clearly there's some point where a new article is called for, but you're immersed in the material, which I'm not, so really I guess it should be your call. It seems unlikely that a completely inexperienced contributor to Wikinews would get right all the stuff like attributing claims and "allegedly"s and whatnot, so it'd probably take a lot to whip the proposed change into shape, however that factors into things. (Personally, btw, I wouldn't have published it as a single paragraph; we generally require at least three paragraphs, as one of the elements of minimal article size, and I'd have tried to insert paragraph breaks to avoid a one-paragraph publication. But that's me; it's evidently an exceptional situation.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we can't change the focus ... I agree. And I don't know if it was late at night or what, but when I looked at the 'changes to review' it looked a lot different than a normal diff page.

I actually couldn't make heads or tails of it. It looked like paragraphs were being duplicated and changed. But nevermind that. Also, I was wrong in assuming Legume would be the first of many. Well, there was a time, when that would have happened. I am sure I can find you something in the archives to show you what it was like. Anyway, I'll just be taking my pleasure with the editing/reviewing/writing for now. This is goodnight for me. I don't know when you sleep (if at all), but sweet dreams to ya'. --SVTCobra 03:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)--SVTCobra 03:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen enough of the old edit histories to realize that things used to get pretty crazy sometimes.
I do sleep; a few years ago I used to be able to pull all-nighters at need to catch up with the review queue, but I find that physically more difficult now. Though we'll see what happens if William Saturn starts up again with his On the campaign trail articles; I used to do nine-hour reviews of those, sometimes stretching into the wee hours, and then spend a month recovering from it in time for the next one. That article series was satisfying. --Pi zero (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:North-West Frontier Province[edit]

Thanks for moving it back. I was going to make a request but hadn't worked out the wording. Can I highlight that the pages could be moved quickly using the Cat-a-lot script? It can be enabled through your global.js at Meta. Green Giant (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Balitmore Maryland shooting kills 3[edit]

I got to run but could you look at this. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Category requests[edit]

Some days ago I made some category requests. Please make those categories. And if it is not late enough, please review the Super cup article. (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to squeeze in at least some of those cat-creations in copious free time. Review mostly takes priority when I have Wikinews time, of course, when I'm able to review, and developing my dialog tools takes most Wikinews time when I can't review; and I admit what happens to the rest is kind of haphazard. And, speaking of review... --Pi zero (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

54 dead after bus crash in southern Brazil[edit]

I looked a little closer now ... the odd thing the casualty number is never mentioned in the body of the article. Another oddity, Brian McNeil talks in his review about "triangulating casualty numbers" ... I am not really sure what he is getting on about. But surely, Wikinews could have done a better job. Still, I don't think we are in retraction or correction territory. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I wonder if brianmc had intended to not specify a particular number in the article, and overlooked that it was built into the headline. I've had stuff slip past me that way. In any case, as I remark at the article talk, it doesn't matter whether it's our fault; this is about not deceiving our readers. If we know we were wrong, we have to share that knowledge with them. (I don't know that yet, myself; I haven't had the time to study it properly.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Will you agree, at least, if the article said "according to RT" then we would have been fine? If not, you are opening Pandora's box. Cheers. --SVTCobra 04:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Attribution is our primary means of immunizing ourselves against mistakes. It's usually possible to have a very high level of confidence that somebody said something. --Pi zero (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


Barnstar of Busy Bee.png

Congratulations, Pi zero. You have accumulated over 100,000 edits on Wikinews! For this amazing achievement, which I believe is a first in Wikinews history, I award you the Golden Barnstar of the Busy Bee. --SVTCobra 22:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

IDK...Might want to see my history :P J/K good work! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
My numbers are presumably inflated because I deliberately break my edits during reviews into lots of small edits to explain each one more clearly and give each a specific, useful diff. But even if it's a kind of arbitrary number, it's a kind of cool arbitrary number. :-D  So, cheers! Thanks! --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Brian McNeil is at 49801, Jason is at 38871, and I am at 27151. It takes all three of us to beat Pi zero. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Blood Red Sandman checks in at 31601. I really have dropped in the rankings in my 5 years of being mostly absent. I don't know who else might have high edit counts. Bawolff is around 22K. --SVTCobra 23:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


This category has over 200 subcategories. Would there be any objections if I were to create some categories for politicians by country e.g. Category:British politicians or even politicians by continent? Green Giant (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Green Giant: For my part, I don't see that it would be desirable. We prefer when at all possible to use DPLs instead of intersection categories, because intersection categories represent a massive administrative maintenance load (and we've already got admin-years' worth of categorization tasks backlog). The size of Category:Politicians doesn't really trouble me. Category:Politicians, however large it is, makes it possible to leave person-categories out of Category:News articles by person, thus, uncluttering that — once, that is, the person-categories have been converted to use {{topic cat}}, a process we've been slowly working on for years now. (I have in mind to create a semi-automated assistant for configuring {{topic cat}} on a category, once I've got my dialog tools ready for prime time and start learning about how to build assistants with them in practice.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. I thought it would be best to ask before doing it. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad research[edit]

Your revert is false, misleading and shows work of a bad journalist. The car was sold and the new owner did not remove the advertisements which they where obliged to do! The campaign of the company means something totally different. Get your facts right! --Paddy (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Paddy: Your edit was unfair to the company, as it left the reader with no way to judge the graphic for themselves. More appropriate to your objection would be a subtle adjustment to the wording of the article text. --Pi zero (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I wrote to you on IRC --Paddy (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Although I was already well into saying more in response here. There's not much point further fragmenting the discussion; it belongs on the article's collaboration page. --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Vatican to Palestinians: Remove us from your Draft Resolution to UN General Assembly[edit]

It would probably be a good idea to fix the same misspelling on the main page. (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it. Thx. --Pi zero (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for your help! It is always good to have somebody more experienced and with a keen eye to learn from, I will definitely know what to do next time :)

Jmer559 (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I have re-edited the article with more sources and also more information, please let me know if I have missed anything again! I really appreciate your time and help.