User talk:Pi zero

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.
Brian McNeil

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–Aug 2017 
Sep 2017–10 Jan 2018       
11 Jan 2018–                             


What could these Portal users be all about? Hmm. --SVTCobra 17:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I've been thinking those looked fishy. Can we disallow them under the "misleading or confusing" clause of WN:U? --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
IDK. --SVTCobra 17:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Three of the "Portal" accounts have popped up as upload abusers in the last day or so. --SVTCobra 15:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Open WN:DR + other votes[edit]

Any chance of closing some of the open votes? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to e clear, I am shying away from doing reviews until my WN:FRRFP is closed. I think I did one fail, but it was like a automatic because it was single source. --SVTCobra 00:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I know you are the ultimate curator, but have I been keeping you awake at night? Did you review each of my edits? I say so because of Special:Diff/4402999. I find it amusing, but maybe a little sad too. --SVTCobra 05:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC) [keyoard]
I try. To err is human (though, as has been pointed out, to really screw things up you need a computer). --Pi zero (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
There are things that keep me awake at nights, such as my worries for Wikinews, and my —related— worries for the future of the human race. You haven't been especially vexatious to me. --Pi zero (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Just to let folks know. Tomorrow local time (Saturday, May 5), I'll be doing my civic duty by participating in Annual Town Meeting (I'm in central Massachusetts). I expect to be out of internet contact from early in the morning until sometime in the afternoon — again, local time. It's likely I'll get home, rather exhausted, just a few hours before midnight UTC. --Pi zero (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

We'll try to keep the project from going down the tubes in your absence. Bring a cooler full of refreshments to mark the day and pass the time with less stress. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's done. For better and worse. We adopted zoning bylaws on the sale and growing of marijuana, and we voted to replace the town's elementary school at a total price tag (supposedly most of it eventually gets reimbursed by the state) that's just mind-boggling.

I've wondered about writing up such meetings as OR. Not necessarily submitting them, but at least writing them up, for practice. For submission, I'd want to have some close discussions with veteran Wikinewsies about COI (because I wouldn't care to refrain from voting at town meeting). --Pi zero (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Every attendee gets to vote? Or are you on the city/town council? I wouldn't mind evaluating your write-ups for NPOV, but I'd probably need some points of reference. Do they get coverage on hyper-local sites like Patch Media? Good luck with the MJ. Did the state decriminalize or do you have to worry about them and the Feds? Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Massachusetts decriminalized it. And we have an open town meeting (that's what I linked to, above), where, yes, every citizen of the town has the right to vote at town meeting. The vote for the new school needed a 2/3 majority, and the vote count was (according to my notes) 767 to 282 in favor. We have no quorum (or maybe it's one or two people; for practical purposes it's no quorum), which my father explained to me, long ago, is why we don't have the attendance problems some towns do; some towns have had to call the fire department over to make their quorum, but if you know that choosing not to come to town meeting will mean that someone else will make the decisions, even if there are only a handful of people there, that's a good reason for you to attend. --Pi zero (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did click the link, but didn't read all the way into the voting. It's closer to the old Greek Democracy, yet probably unworkable for larger societies. The Internet was supposed to solve that, but we've seen already how that will undoubtedly go wrong. --SVTCobra 01:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Town Meeting is the legislature of the town, while the Board of Selectmen (hm, I wonder what the current practical nomenclature is, and whether it's been officially changed...) is the town's executive. As I say, the quorum is important in how it works, though alas that principle isn't widely understood, so there are some people here trying to impose a quorum. The largest-scale example of this sort of thing I've heard of was in Qaddafi's Libya, where he had, iirc, all local communities holding town meetings, the decisions of which supposedly flowed upward. I remember something on PBS about democracy some years back (honestly can't remember what it was called), where in exploring why democracy has trouble taking root in Africa, the host interviewed Qaddafi, who said something about different people having different responsibilities in the state, and the host asked Qaddafi if he was the person responsible for thinking and Qaddafi said, yes. But the host also suggested that by imposing this massive town-meeting system, sham though it might be, Qaddafi might actually be planting the idea of democracy there in a way that could ultimately take root more effectively than in most parts of Africa (though of course there have been a lot of dramatic changes in Libya since then that the host didn't remotely anticipate). --Pi zero (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


I have gone through all of the Protected edit requests and substantially reduced the list. The remaining ones are changes I feel uncomfortable making, or outright disagree with (such as adding or changing infoboxes on old articles; issuing corrections on really old articles; and questionable style changes). Perhaps you have some time now that our review queue is cleared. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll see if I can slip some in. I'm struggling mightily to restore my momentum on developing the semi-automation we desperately need, while several other things are happening off-Wikinews that I also need to pour time into. It seems worthwhile to allocate a fraction of my efforts to protected edit requests. --Pi zero (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Rescuing dead urls[edit]

Are you starting a project to rescue dead urls in sources? If so, that is going to be the single most massive and time-consuming project ever. The {{w}} project will look like a stroll in the park. --SVTCobra 16:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I'm not systematically seeking to do so, no. However, when I need to examine the sources of an article for curational purposes, and that leads me to dig up an archive of a broken source url, I figure to save that information on the article page so the effort of finding the archive doesn't just get thrown away. --Pi zero (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sinebot or similar[edit]

Why is it we don't seem to have a Sinebot or similar bot to sign comments? --SVTCobra 14:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Such bots have come and gone, over the years. At some point, I admit, I stopped worrying about it, except to add {{unsigned2}} when I notice it's needed; I'm not, after all, fond of bots, on principle. Eventually I hope dialog-based assistance may be able to help cut down on incidence of such problems; but of course I hope that about most things on-wiki :-). --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's start work on an Artificially Intelligent bot that can write synthesis articles without violating copyright. --SVTCobra 14:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
which would leave no motivation for writing articles on Wikinews. (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. And the AI would probably refuse to publish the articles we wrote, anyway. But don't worry, the AI will make sure you get all the important news like obeying the robot overlords. --SVTCobra 15:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. [1]. --Pi zero (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


Sorry for creating this. --Faop8 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Faop8: Not a tragedy; it'll be taken care of, in the natural course of things on Wikinews. We have a standard process that (after a few days) cleans up attempted articles that didn't work out. --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Just to alert you to Special:AbuseLog/8732. Green Giant (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably the same entity as this and may be related to something else that also happened around the same time. But I wouldn't worry about it. --SVTCobra 05:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don’t understand the reason behind the block. The username policy says nothing about it. Though we have a never assume policy (it can be used as don’t assume the only notorious use of the symbol for inspiration behind the username), the block notice should answer “why” it is unacceptable. I don’t see a reason mentioned on the user talk either. (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That's why there's a link to the policy. And, yes, it is covered by the policy. --SVTCobra 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
point out exactly what is problematic here. (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The account with 11 swastikas was created by the same person who created User:MAKENEWSGREATAGAIN and User:NWAexposer. Unfortunately, although the swastika is an ancient symbol for luck, it is more recently also associated with Nazi symbolism. Combine this unacceptable anti-Semitic edit with the swastikas and it is clear they only intended one meaning for that username. Green Giant (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
As if you don't know, Is this really another hill you want to make a stand on? --SVTCobra 10:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Location also matters, since the offensive sense of the swastika is especially likely atm from the "red states" of the US. The IP caught by the abuse filter at the start of this thread has reported location in central Ohio. --Pi zero (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think location is particularly important. Internet edgelords can come from anywhere. As they troll, they choose the most offensive things for shock value, more than representing a view they actually hold. --SVTCobra 10:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Not in itself decisive, certainly; but perhaps relevant in accumulating contextual support for offensive intent. The profile I see emerging is consistent with someone with a rather crude modus operandi (I'm put in mind of Rex Tillerson's leaked comment about Donald Trump). --Pi zero (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

when you say the same person was behind the IP vandalising the project, (well, how did you reach that conclusion?) then why is the block notice echoing nothing about it? (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a notification that NWAexposer edited my userpage (as well as others). All three accounts logged in to WN within 25 minutes of each other. I considered this to be disruptive with a potential to spill over to other wikis, so I carried out a checkuser at loginwiki to see if there was a link between the three accounts, which was confirmed. They were actually registered within four minutes of each other from the same IP together with two other accounts which were disruptive on WQ, using the same operating system and browser. I regularly check the abuse and block logs here and elsewhere, primarily for spambots, but in this instance I saw the above IP (in the same range) had made two attempts to replace Pi zero's userpage with swastikas. My conclusion is that it is the same person or persons. In the past, accounts with swastikas in the name have been locked for "offensive/abusive usernames" e.g. this one. Green Giant (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Then that needs to be mentioned in the block note for historical record, not just "Unacceptable username". BTW, I did not know you had CU permission. Well, someone with Swastik should not be blocked just by itself because of preconceived notions. (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the CU is only at loginwiki, and comes with stewardship. I can also do CU on some smaller wikis on request. I agree that preconceived notions are dangerous but in this case it is clear the account was not intended for constructive editing. Green Giant (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
what happened in this cause should have been documented. It is not because of swastik in the name but actions — incomplete information could be misleading for those who learn from observing. (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
If you mean create a User Page with a block notice to "document" the incident, I disagree. That would give the troll nothing but satisfaction. A username consisting of nothing more than swastikas is globally considered offensive on Wiki projects. Whether it is one swastika or a bunch strung together, no such account has been allowed to stand. So much so, that no record is left of them. You can check for yourself here: Special:CentralAuth. Type in as many or as few swastikas as you like and see if you find any accounts. Green Giant can perhaps elaborate, but I believe that when such accounts come up on the Steward message board, the user names are suppressed and hidden. I have seen "hidden names" there, but I don't know what they were since I am not a Steward. One could make a case for hiding it on our own block log and deletion log. --SVTCobra 15:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure how much documentation is necessary in cases like this, nor can I see a clear location to do it. Some (but not all) lock/unlock requests to stewards are made at m:SRG. Perhaps something similar might work here e.g. a noticeboard. Would WN:AAA be suitable? I think there’s also a danger of creating more administrative work than needed. As for SVTCobra's comment, the hide-name function is used in the listing at SRG, where the username is offensive or abusive. You can still read the name by opening the page for editing though. A somewhat different tool is used by stewards to globally hide a username, particularly if there are offensive edits by the user. It doesn’t hide the edits themselves which would need an oversighter if necessary. Green Giant (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not consider any number of swastik offensive. I can not say unless I know the reason to choose it, and the message it is trying to convey. I decline to treat it as offensive just because a bunch of “bad people” used it. Getting offended by swastik without knowing the reason behind it is ignorance. I am not pointing out any single person. (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Offense is taken, not given. So, good for you to not be offended. But the meaning (or perceived meaning) of symbols, as well as words, can change over time and history. We shouldn't ignore ancient history, but neither should we ignore more recent history, lest we fail to recognize that things always change and always will. It is arguably a mistake that the swastika was made so taboo by force of law, but it was, and it only served to make it a favorite among trolls and hate mongers. It is, however, part and parcel with the world we live in today. The degree of severity of the stigma varies greatly, of course, from place to place but there are entire countries where it is illegal to display the swastika. Many more, depending on use, it constitutes a hate crime. The swastika is not unique in suffering this fate, though it is by far the most known symbol. Less known, is the fact that the sowilō is similarly illegal in some places. The celtic cross has been banned in places. --SVTCobra 17:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I see swastik multiple times a day, and it is prominent in various cultures, even now -- people draw swastik in rangoli every single day. Just because one of the uses was infamous, that does not nullify everything else, so for the username policy, it should be better than, "oh, some bunch of 'bad people' used it so it is prohibited" -- the intention needs to be disclosed; and if someone finds swastik "inappropriate", they should educate themselves about the other cultures. (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I am fully aware it adorns many temples; it can even be found in tiles in old buildings here. I know it has a different meaning and people use it with good intentions. The swastika was never black-listed for use in usernames, even though it was proposed many times, for this very reason. I take this to mean that people are free to use it as a single character as part of an overall username. But to construct a username entirely from swastikas has not been permitted. Also, to construct a username entirely from repeating characters (any character) is also something that gets routinely disallowed. Ever since SUL was final, it is beyond just Wikinews. It will not matter if we re-write Wikinews username policy. Swastika-only usernames will be globally locked. At the same time, I would not be inclined to re-write any policy, here or at Meta, to allow such usernames, merely based on your personal life experiences. Do not take this as an insult, but you may be too young, too inexperienced in the world, to fully grasp the gravity of this matter. --SVTCobra 19:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
This May, keep your "may"s to you yourself. Like any government, democratic or not, the organisations are run by people with agendas. And it is not the first time most of them want to act ignorant. (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Right. You keep on marching through life with that attitude. I'm sure it's going to get you far. --SVTCobra 19:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
When I started writing a comment here, the discussion was still fairly reasonable. During the time I've been writing, the discussion has started turning sour. I'll still say pretty much what I was going to. I admit to some disappointment, though. And I'll thank everyone not to turn my user talk into a war zone.
  • The symbol in question is in current positive use in some cultures. I hope we're all clear on that. It's not some ancient history.
  • In this particular case there was demonstrated vandalistic intent. There was also demonstrated antisemitic expression, which I prefer not to give special status to, when I can avoid it, since trolls love getting special attention.
  • Some policy reasons for blocking need further explanation, especially if there are any additional restrictions on the block, such as "Prevent account creation" or "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from". It was pointed out to me some years ago (by BRS) that this is especially true of WN:ROLE; but it is also often true of WN:U. If an account name is unacceptable, generally, the user should choose another, and they can't do that if the account cannot create other accounts and the IP is temporarily blocked too. If we don't want to let them just choose another account name, the reason for blocking should give some indication of why. And in this case (as in a great many cases), just the name itself does not provide that.
--Pi zero (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Pi, everyone has explicitly acknowledged 'current positive use in some cultures'. I will never assume good faith from a username that is a long string of swastikas, with or without vandalism. But in this case we were in the midst of a vandalism attack. And the best way to halt those is to use the severest version of the blocks and get a grip on the situation. The account creation and IP restrictions could have been lifted should it have turned out to be unrelated, but it was not. And why are we talking about this like it is a local issue? That name was never going to stand as an SUL.
But why the lecture on role-accounts? Because of User:Jimbo WaIes article guy? I guess I prevented account creation because it looked unmistakably like a part of the Cruizer/"Jimbo Wales is peed on" campaign. The lack of a block notice was an honest oversight. The user could still have appealed. I usually handle role issues like User:EMOTION! --SVTCobra 20:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to the actions taken. I'm not even overly upset about details of it to do with justification, 'cause it's not like I haven't slipped a little when in a hurry to cut short ongoing vandalism. I did want to acknowledge that assumptions should not be made about the symbol in general (reminder: nobody here should ever assume good faith, generically; the key is not generally assuming bad faith, either). Regarding reasons for blockage, well, I've found it an interesting insight that WN:U is another policy that, like WN:ROLE, doesn't fully explain a block when it involves additional restrictions, so I decided to try to articulate that. --Pi zero (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The mind-boggling bit is that three of us were on IRC discussing the attack when I made the block. I presume we all saw it happen, more-or-less in real time. But now, days later when Green Giant points out something in the AbuseLog, it suddenly becomes the Battle for Hamburger Hill. I tried to give a nuanced explanation of how the symbol has taken on a life of its own but to no avail. --SVTCobra 21:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
My nuanced comments haven't been working very well either. --Pi zero (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

first of all, I cannot see the abuse log or the IP of that account; secondly, I just asked for better block log info so that those learning from admin’s action do not misinterpret it, and the final point is about MSM and their actions leading to misleading information about eastern cultures. (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[edit]

not to take up your time but check this wiki like news wiki wikitribune is cool. --Tribuneman2018 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We've been aware of wikitribune since it was first announced; naturally, since it's generally agreed to be a blatant attempt to undermine Wikinews (though not really threatening to Wikinews since it was notably undertaken without even trying to tap into our local expertise on what does and doesn't work). It's been discussed here from time to time; generally, folks here haven't had a high opinion of it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Help -- email[edit]

I used wikinewsie for contacting Commonwealth and they replied -- however their response came to my private email, instead of -- why so? And what if I want to reply to them? However, in an earlier scenario, when someone emailed me on -- I received it on

Also, why do I get a failure message whenever I message scoop? Did you receive the mail I had forwarded to scoop?
•–• 10:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Pi. I noticed our role account policy really doesn't speak to the matter of having a role, but rather just the issue of shared access. Shouldn't we expand it a little, perhaps using some of the ideas from meta:Role account to account for usernames that imply an office, position, or task. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Punching bag"[edit]

Among all the other comments on the Abrams article, you said that one of my actions made you feel used[2]. I invite you to tell me which action that was so that I may make any adjustments that I conclude to be appropriate and necessary. If you don't feel like saying, simply don't ping or reply. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: This has become quite a complicated situation. Possibly I can untangle it a bit.

In your 'punching bag' remark you accused me of emotional blackmail. I was insulted — would not describe it as feeling "used", but I did find it insulting to suggest what I perceived as a petty motivation. It's not uncommon, when I'm really ticked off, for the volume of my on-wiki remarks to drop off precipitously, as I spend ballooning amounts of time making false starts and harshly filtering what I want to say. Not uncommonly, all that comes out after epic writing sessions is short, downright cryptic remarks. In this case, though, the problem of what to say in response was made even more baffling by the fact that your remark about emotional blackmail was also precipitating an insight into, tentatively, perhaps how your thinking ran on this matter.

Once in graduate school I experienced a spectacular example where all the students in a math class had the "math thing" but the professor did not. It was, actually, a useful class for me, looking back, providing some perspective on the shape of the overall landscape of that particular part of the Platonic realm of mathematics. Which is interesting, because the professor, lacking the cognitive ability that makes the abstract shape of mathematics visible, was literally unable to see the landscape that I appreciated learning about from the class. It was actually invisible to them, and a side insight from taking the class was learning something of what the subject looked like to the professor, once one subtracted from it that whole marvelous landscape that was the primary point of the class for most of us (I think; certainly for me). Here I think we have a similar situation. Some of what's going on with Wikinews, you're just not seeing. For whatever reason; it may not even matter why, for practical purposes. But, just as with that professor, a key question in understanding your perspective is, if part of the landscape I'm seeing is simply not there when you look at the same thing, what do you see when you look there? And in this case, it appears you're ascribing emotion-related motives to me. Perhaps that sounds like a small insight, but my intuition is telling me it may be quite important; quite useful, if I can quite figure out what to do with it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression "the math thing" before, but [post removed; didn't realize the ping was from days ago, and we've already talked some out on my talk page and you did what I interpreted as walking away] Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Admittedly, on some of our various conversations I have not yet even read your most recent responses. Discussions with you are often exercises in frustration and extreme time sinks on a project whose entire infrastructure is designed to (among other things) avoid time sinks. The Wikipedian habit of long, verbose back-and-forth discussions is (though I suppose I fall into the habit easily with you; all that history between us, after all) historically frowned upon at Wikinews. In this case, the sheer number of these conversations, and the impracticality of pursuing all of them — and the fact that they often each have different tones from each other — can also make it awkward to try to address any one of them as one is never quite sure what developments on another of them might skew the perception of remarks made on another.

I had chosen to share the curious case of that math class in the hope — mistaken hope, I think — that it could be useful. Math is something that, in my experience, some people have the knack for, some don't, and people aren't thought any less of if they happen not to have the knack for it. I suppose I was hoping to invoke that sort of tolerance for differences in cognitive skills. However, the whole thing comes out as a weird sort of meta-demonstration of something, because I attempted to appeal to a form of reasoning that isn't your preferred mode of reasoning, which makes the entire appeal a rather predictable source of further unsuccessful communication. --Pi zero (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Small note[edit]

Just in case you hadn't seen it yet. Abuselog. Green Giant (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. --Pi zero (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing that out. I have left a message at the bot operators talkpage. Green Giant (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A thank you is in order[edit]

I saw you flagged the profane articles by a, I want to believe is just disgruntled, individual. On be half of the rest of us, thank you for speedy action. AZOperator (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Time for a short-term IP block perhaps? Green Giant (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see I'd given them a one-hour block, earlier. Sometimes that's enough, after all. Gave them longer this time. --Pi zero (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Aye, that should give them some time to ruminate. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request[edit]

Hey, Please delete User_talk:Jamiebally, as an editor asked to take this username. Thanks! 1997kB (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@1997kB: It looked to me as if the redirect had been pointing to the page to be moved into it, so that it ought to have happened with no problem had it not been edited. The info provided at the speedy-delete tag checked out, though, and it's done. --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:DANGI VIA GBARA[edit]

I'm not sure what to do about this template. The user seems to be excited to be on wikis but I don't think they fully understood what a template is for. It doesn't seem to fit any speedy deletion criteria, so I'm thinking maybe it might be best to move it into userspace? Your thoughts, please? Green Giant (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Filter for WP0 abuse[edit]

Hi! Could you create a Special:AbuseFilter for WP0 uploads? You can copy it from w:fi:Toiminnot:Väärinkäyttösuodatin/153. After this they can't upload copyviolated files (like File:Don G ft Masta It Is What It Iz.mp3) in this wiki. The same filter is already enabled on many wikis. Stryn (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stryn: I'll look into it. I've never been comfortable with the abuse filter (yet another gratuitously introduced different language). --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I tried. However, each time I tried to save the filter, it erased what I'd entered in the conditions field, and refused to save on the grounds that the conditions field is required. (Only supporting, to my thinking, the general principle that it's a fundamentally bad design strategy to be introducing separate languages and interfaces for these things.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what went wrong then, but because this wiki is abused a lot (most of all WMF wikis) of those uploads, I changed the filter 26 to match and prevent from uploading those copyviolations on this wiki. Stryn (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully that will do the trick. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP0 Abuse[edit]

Hello, I don't speak english very well, my home wiki is portuguese wikipedia there I'm rollback end autoviewer

I come here to give you delete all WP0 files that find here

FranciscoMG (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving over redirects[edit]

I was a little surprised by this edit because I didn’t know that new users on WN could move pages over redirects. I noted it in RC, where the user appeared to have shown up in the deletion log! Green Giant (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That surprised me too. But their account was created on September 10, 2017 -- and maybe move is allowed after certain days. Or maybe they reached threshold edits but were later deleted (I guess).
•–• 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


YOU ARE STUPID Arie sata (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Arie sata,

1) In the aim to follow Wikinews mission of informing the readers of current events, we don't publish stories less than three paragraphs long. Doing this would simply not inform them of the essence of the event. Please see content guide and style guide carefully.

2) I'd like to help you with one story, and asked you a few questions about it at your talk page. If you could answer these questions then it could increase chances of its completion and publication.

--Gryllida (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Email "Checking potential wikilinks"[edit]

I have sent you a mail on your gmail ID. Please try it.
•–• 05:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess I lost some rights[edit]

I have left a note on #wikinews -- can you grant me those rights again? I can't even move pages now.
•–• 06:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Original discussion at AAA. Gryllida (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

abuse filter — suggestion[edit]

I would like to recommend that you implement a nice simple filter that we have found effective at meta

It has proved successful against the bots. After reviewing this, please delete the visible filter components, no need to overly advertise. As a little as you are down on active administrators, that the global abuse filters can be active here if the community displays that consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 ArbCom elections[edit]

I would like to nominate you for this season's ArbCom. Would you mind accepting the nomination?
•–• 23:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I accept. --Pi zero (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


im a newbie i need guidance. i see u have been on wikinews for some time. any encouragement would help thank you. Gazamosq33 (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Gazamosq33. To start with, you should take a look at Wikinews:Pillars of writing, which is a compact overview of basic principles of what we do here; that covers a lot in just a little space. Then, there is a tutorial on writing a first article here at Wikinews:Writing an article. There's another way of thinking about the writing process — same ideas, just different way of presenting them — at Wikinews:Article wizard.

We say our initial learning curve is steep but, thankgfully, short; you never stop learning, here, but once you've got the basics its a lot easier. For the particular article you've started: Evidently you have chosen your focal event. Choose your sources; we require at least two mutually independent sources; cite them in the sources section (I've provided frameworks for the template calls, just write in each relevant field value after the "=") and, we strongly recommend, read the the sources before you start to write (well, you've started, a bit, but, read the sources, and perhaps rethink how to write: you need to write in a way that doesn't copy passages from elsewhere: information from eleswhere, but your own words). Your lede should succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about your focal event, and in the process it should establish that your focal event is newsworthy; especially important is showing that the event is fresh (the other elements of newsworthiness, relevance and specificity, seem pretty clear in this case), for which you need to say what day the focal event happened — that's "when", one of the five Ws. I notice you also need to touch on "where" in your lede, and remember to write for an international audience (you need to include an extra word or three so they know where in the world Miami Lakes is). After the lede, you need at least two more paragraphs, in an inverted pyramid giving more details and background, with total text adding up to at least three or four times as many words as you have now so as to meet our minimal article requirements. It needs to be finished promptly (always, because with news there is a deadline), and submitted for review by an authorized reviewer such as myself.

Feel free to ask me questions. (I'll be away for a bit this morning (local time), but shall return.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete lickety?[edit]

That is not nice! Aaron Giebel (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Aaron Giebel: Well, it clearly wasn't news. Some versions of it were a bit spammy. If you want to experiment with wiki editing, use the sandbox. If you might be interested in contributing, take a look at Wikinews:Pillars of writing, and then if you decide to take the plunge, there's a tutorial on writing a first article at Wikinews:Writing an article. --Pi zero (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not just a newslaper, pi zero it is more[edit]

... I actually don't know but I think it is a dictionary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaron Giebel (talkcontribs) 01:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews is not Wikipedia. --Pi zero (talk) 01:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply: oh.


Oh Aaron Giebel (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Am I to delete a conversation after it was replied, to? Thanks.[edit]

If not, I'm sorry Aaron Giebel (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Accepted. Now you know. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll try the sandbox[edit]

. Aaron Giebel (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

In New to this :) Aaron Giebel (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent problem[edit]

Hi. The recent comments here were flagged for my attention. It looks like it's over, so best I don't step in it. Should there be a wider pattern of trolling on gender, on any of our projects, I would be interested in keeping an eye on it and would welcome an off-wiki note. Should there be an on-going pattern it is both worth considering revisiting policies local to Wikinews or other projects where discussion may be getting hijacked, and/or going back to the WMF's terms of use and seeing if a refinement or specific resolution might help ensure policies reflect the top level mission.

Thanks for deescalating this case.

Cheers -- (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

So finally, it is over[edit]

Dealing with the group stage was a pain in the arse. Dealing with my mood swings, I believe, was harder. Congratulations. We have the entire set of the World Cup match reports and we can also have tonnes of categories. Thanks for reviewing 1000000 match reports! Here is a barnstar for that!

Football Barnstar Hires.png

. (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Page to be deleted[edit]

Please, can you remove these page. I had created it

User talk:Massimo Jorge Chiacchio

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gioelebarb (talkcontribs) 04:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gioelebarb: Generally, to delete the user talk page of a registered account would require a request from the owning account. --Pi zero (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I created the account, but after all these years I forgot the login information, please delete the page. Gioelebarb 16:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the awkwardness of that situation, but the simplest situation is just to leave it alone and forget about it; it doesn't appear to be doing any harm. --Pi zero (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the category message[edit]

(Inspired from the tool I wanted to make to alert me for article rename before publishing), this script logs "test 0". Now, I don't know the architecture or the flow of dialog tools, but can you have a look?

That also reminds me of the ECMAScript state-based question we were discussing one day, but you did not want to predict what was happening. (I should cut some of the time I spend on-wiki to complete that project)
•–• 04:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

scripts and database[edit]

I am deleting those scripts and the database it was updating. After all, I was subscribed to DBaaS and just like how wiki-* is not a personal web-host, I should not use that DBaaS for Wikinews. And after all, "not everyone needs that tool". (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of news articles[edit]

Speaking of news articles, is original research even allowed? Educator57 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User:Educator57. :-)  On Wikinews, "OR" stands for "original reporting", and it's not only allowed, it's the most valued —and most difficult— form of reporting we do. Before you can do OR, you have to first write a bunch of synthesis, till you can consistently produce articles that can pass review on their first try and till you've earned a good reputation here (see the bit about "accumulated reputation" at Wikinews:Never assume), and then you have to extra work when gathering information and when documenting it for us. The results are, at best, quite excellent;
Yea, also practice copy editing others' submissions maybe, useful to do when / before writing synthetis articles. Gryllida 12:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What about the fact-checking part of original reporting? Educator57 (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

OR has to be heavily documented; the documentation is different in character from that of a synthesis article, is all. A rule of thumb says, when writing OR, aim to provide lots more documentation than necessary, rather than aiming for "enough". --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
That, of course, is after having gained the experience and earned the reputation. --Pi zero (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Some kind of original reporting involves writing about what you saw or heard, first-hand ("I saw 50 people attended the protest. I saw Bob Smith gave a talk") and others involve the reporter contacting a third party who can give such answers (perhaps this can be called second-hand so to speak? perhaps there is a better word or phrase for this). In the latter case checking the facts is pretty straightforward: the reporter sends a copy of the message they received from the third party to a reviewers' internal address. In the former case however it is difficult to check - perhaps the reporter made a mistake or is intentionally lying. This needs to be prevented. There are several mechanisms:
0) First-hand reporting requires evidence: notes taken, photos, videos, copies of conference programmes, and the like. This could be faked, but I don't think this occurred previously, and then we have other mechanisms listed below.
1) Expectation that reporters contribute for a few months reporting based on existing publications (synthetis) first which is easier to check, then based on replies from third parties (OR-interviews) and only then the contributor may be blessed with Accreditation to report first-hand. As the brain is wired with a tendency to believe easier than to disbelieve, and as fact checking requires having the ability to disbelieve (or, more precisely, to never assume), such continuous contribution would allow others to see whether the author has (or is willing to build) this wonderful and rare skill.
2) Reviewers aim to fact check based on existing published data.
3) Article talk page is available for readers to raise their concerns about misleading information, and a {{correction}} may be added if published articles contain wrong information.
Writing wrong information (due to negligence or due to malice) is really discouraged and is against the policies, you see. I hope this manner of explaining it is not wrong (I don't think I fully explained this to anyone before; as a first attempt at explaining, this may be confusing in some ways). Hope it helps. Gryllida (chat) 02:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


I noticed that when you redacted today's edits on the Pakistan satellite article, you removed them for copyright violation. I am requesting that this edit be hidden as well, because it is the edit which introduced the problematic content, and your edit above it merely added the "under review" template to the article. Inner Focus (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thought I'd nixed that one at the same time; done now. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Boss for Real Madrid Julen Lopetegui warns Messi not to doubt squad[edit]

Hi Pi when you get a chance could you look over my developing article on Real Madrid and Messi's comments on Madrid? thank you. I really hope to get it published! Krimpins (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Krimpins: Hi. I added some required elements. Those should be added automatically when creating an article using one of the article creation forms scattered about the site, such as the one at Wikinews:Writing an article.

You'll want to set up the source articles to use the {{source}} template: I provided a skeleton of a call to that template, which you complete by writing the values of the fields after the "=" on each line. The lede should be in past tense (like the rest of the article) and should be a short, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the WN:five Ws and an H; it should be written to be understood by an international audience, and should explain the significance of the event and show it's newsworthy (which includes freshness, so the lede should specify on what day the focal event occurred). If you haven't looked over Wikinews:Pillars of writing, I recommend it. --Pi zero (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to inform you that I've done some 'clean-up' on the article. Leaderboard (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Krimpins: I looked at the article and was puzzled. The sources do not appear to be about the story reported. See my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Hello, could you please block This is a troll from Thanks, Guycn2 (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guycn2: Why do you think this is a troll from I'd like to understand.

(It appears the IP is restoring explicit IP data to some pages, which is not necessarily wrong, as en.wn does not remove interwikis once the information is also available on Wikidata. It appears in this case to be information that did get removed, for some reason, and I'm not even sure why that happened; perhaps there was a reason that made sense at the time but I've now forgotten. At some point in the future we hope to have semi-automation to compare our local interwikis to what's on Wikidata, offering help to possibly correct any discrepancy between two two either by changing the local interwiki or by changing Wikidata; but we don't have that yet, and in the meantime, although we don't remove local interwikis as a rule, we mostly don't go to a whole lot of trouble to add them when they aren't already there, either.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

He/she was blocked on a few years ago. Since then, he/she methodically reverts edits made by me and other editors using various IP addresses and usernames. This IP's global edits may be useful.
As for this specific edit, I removed these interwiki links in 2014 as they were moved to Wikidata and are no longer necessary. Guycn2 (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
@Guycn2: I did notice they reverted some edits of yours on en.wb that were in the opposite direction, so I'm willing to believe the point of the edits wasn't what they did to the pages involved but simply that they were undoing something you did.

As I mentioned, we don't, as a rule, remove interwikis here just because they're also on Wikidata. (We don't subscribe to the theory that local interwikis cease to serve a useful purpose when the information is also on Wikidata.) Just atm it's not a big deal, though, so I'm not particularly inclined to bother with undoing those removals; they'd need carefully checking anyway, since we don't yet have that semi-automation set up. --Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. Regards, Guycn2 (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Airplane crashes into ocean in Micronesia[edit]

Hi Pi, I noticed you put the above article on indefinite SP as a "standard precaution". What's all that about? This is a 'Wiki' isn't it? BTW, I've done work on Wikipedia, but never anything here on Wikinews. Thanks. (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we're a wiki, though what we do is different from what Wikipedia does and there are various differences in procedure because of that. Our articles get semi-protected once published, which we didn't used to do until full archiving (when they're retired from the main page), but there's noticeably more random, senseless drive-by vandalism these past couple of years.

There's a compact overview of what we do here at Wikinews:Pillars of writing. If you're interested in contributing, we recommend registering a personal account, as users are, well, individuals on Wikinews in a sense that doesn't occur on Wikipedia; we're interested in each individual's accumulated reputation, and it's impossible to know for sure who we're dealing with unless you've got a registered personal account. (See Wikinews:Never assume.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Looks like you need to update or rewrite this: [] (and remove the last line of it). It might also be appropriate to clarify that Jimbo's policy of "you can edit this article right now" doesn't apply here. (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
That principle has exceptions even on Wikipedia. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Since you wrote anonymously, I essentially have no way of contacting you.....but: would you like to start contributing here?--Bddpaux (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
No thanks. The environment is too restrictive and doesn't adhere to the fundamental principles of a wiki. Formerly user, now at IP (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't mistake principles of Wikipedia for principles of all wikis. --Pi zero (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

actually, the way they are saying, it is like they are applying enwp's style. dewp is very different in some cases (FR) or even eswp for not FU.
•–• 15:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I was going to leave this, but what is meant by 'FU'? Apologies if it's so obvious and I've missed it? (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Pretty sure that'd be "fair use". --Pi zero (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Have you read this??[edit]

Wikinews:Requests for permissions top post by User:Leaderboard?? Interesting idea for light cleanup duties..... --Bddpaux (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


G'day Pi zero, I don't edit on this project, but am an admin on en Wikipedia. Today someone created User:Peacemaker67/common.js on WikiNews, apparently using my account, and I was notified via the interwiki alerts system. I didn't create the page myself. I've obviously changed my password, but this is a little weird to say the least. Any ideas what was/is going on? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: If you are an admin on enwp, and if 2FA seems to be a good idea, I would suggest you opt for that. I wonder if you received any on-wiki notification that your account was accessed from another device. In case if you happen to see what that script did, it ran a malicious JavaScript file from another host (see here) It is scary shit. Really scary thing, which affects many other projects too. I really urge you to change your password once again. Pinging someone who could be more helpful (@Bawolff:). (Also, it is "Wikinews", with the lower case 'n') I really hope there was no misuse of your account.
•–• 11:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
You might not be the only one. Leaderboard (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we are aware of the situation. A large number of users who were loading w:User:Cameltrader/Advisor.js script were compromised. Since you changed your password you should be fine now. BWolff (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


Has spam and personally-identifiable information. You may want to revdelete most of the revisions. Leaderboard (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Protection of talk page[edit]

Hi. Could you semi-protect my talk page due to ongoing vandalism? -- Tegel (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tegel: From the page history, I'm guessing one year is a plausible time scale. --Pi zero (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would be great. I will add a banner later referring to my Meta talk page. -- Tegel (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering with the 'under review' ...[edit]

... I was reading and writing the review comment for the last several minutes but I had forgotten to mark the story as 'under review' first. I hope it has not resulted into an edit conflict or loss of work. --Gryllida (chat) 21:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: No lost work. We should remember, when we finally do a dialog-based upgrade of the review tool, to have it check for edit conflicts, especially involving {{under review}}, when submitting a not-ready review. --Pi zero (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Three publications in four hours[edit]

A barnstar for you, for helping me keep my promises and commitments, and for the tireless effort!
•–• 00:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


Do you think I'd be a candidate for it here? I'd be primarily interested in 1.) editing archives to add categories and 2.) blocking vandals (as I just undid vandalism by an IP). I'll happily go thru the process but it seems like it's not worth it if you don't think I'd pass. —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

While you have been on WMF wikis for so long, Koavf, you might want to go through the comments for another request. link. Though you know some of the policies and bits of how the project works, adminship would require a deeper level of understanding, which would be best achieved by regular participation of getting the output. As simple as it may seem, the more you write, the more you discover the hidden challenges, which would be helpful for getting the insight an admin needs.
•–• 06:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: Well, it's true we've lately turned down several RFPs for admin. It's important to know what not to do with the admin priv here. I'd hung back replying to your inquiry, myself, figuring to let the idea settle in my mind and see what further thoughts I might have about it. But, in fairness, if acagastya isn't in favor (apparently not), there's a good chance the community would prefer not to push through your RFP over those objections. --Pi zero (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Sure. That makes sense from both of you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Anonymous Blocks[edit]

Hia Pi zero! I have the Satanism interview comments page on my watch list because it had a high vandalism rate back in the day, so I received an email when it was edited. I saw you'd already reverted the change - I'm almost never the "first one on the scene" to revert vandalism because of my schedule - but hadn't issued a temp block to the anonymous user who blanked the page. (That's fine, I'm critiquing my own thought process here, not yours.) Before I noticed you'd already dealt with it, my planned course of action was to revert the changes and give a 1 week block to the anon user. Is that incorrect because this was a single minor action by this IP, rather than a pattern of more serious vandalism? — Gopher65talk 22:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gopher65: Your choice, to block them for a week, would have been perfectly reasonable I think. Oddly, I don't recall actually considering whether to block; probably was distracted by vague possibilities for the editor's intentions other than vandalism. --Pi zero (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gopher65: Okay, they did it again; benign scenarios rendered implausible. One-week block. --Pi zero (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Yup, no question after this. — Gopher65talk 04:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


I just wanted to thank you for accepting me here and working with me through the mistakes I made. I plan to appeal my block on Wikipedia soon, but I think I want to stick around here too. I do not understand why some editors give this place a bad rap; once I learned about “freshness” writing here became much more enjoyable—almost like being back on the main site. Again, your help is appreciated and even convinced me to not give up on editing Wikipedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@TheGracefulSlick: Collaborating with you on Wikinews is a pleasure, and I hope you do continue to contribute here, as well as wishing you well on your appeal at Wikipedia. (Btw, your latest article is now published; you can take a look at my review comments. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Middle East and continents[edit]

Iran is in Asia, and is a part of the Middle East too. Egypt is in Africa, and is a part of Middle East too. Being in one geographical region does not disqualify it from being a part of the seven continents. It is in both, at the same time. And we have a history of keeping them both together. Even though it is less prominent for the articles about ME, or MENA, that has been there for far east ME country (Iran) or far west ME country like Egypt. Russia and Turkey were categorised in both. There is no actual need to not include continents as Israel and Palestine both are in Asia.

And then, how do you determine which geopolitical area to consider? Why not create Middle East and North Africa too? Why have India in Asia when South East Asia will suit well? Yes, they are rhetorical questions, which I avoid. But use your head. Or maybe refer to a different atlas: plot the intersection of Asia and Middle East and answer objectively if they belong to, or not belong to the continents or not. Spare me the subjective answer and opinions.
•–• 06:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Iran is in the continent of Asia. It isn't in our news region that we call "Asia". We don't have a category for the continent of Asia, only for the news region that we call "Asia". If you're asking why, historically, Wikinews divided things up the way it did, I've a distant memory it had to do with how the UN had partitioned the globe for organizational purposes. Once our choice is established and stable, which it has been for many years, where it originally came from doesn't even necessarily matter. (We have occasionally tweaked the boundaries between regions, and I'm not even sure we should have done so; maybe we would have been better off just sticking with the partition originally chosen, e.g. keeping all of Turkey in the Asia region.) --Pi zero (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
You lost me at "Iran is in the continent of Asia."
•–• 06:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Also, Turkish football team is under UEFA, their clubs play in the UEFA competitions, so even if the significant part of Turkey in terms of area is in Asia, I don't know if I should hold my head or laugh at your statement: "keeping all of Turkey in the Asia region".
•–• 06:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
The answer to both is that I was speaking of geography. Geographically, Turkey straddles the boundary between the continents of Asia and Europe; most of it is in the continent of Asia, but a bit is in the continent of Europe. Iirc, Turkey used to be placed simply in our Asia news region, and I was speculating that perhaps that should have been kept in its original simple state, rather than adjusting it. The adjustment was motivated by the geography. --Pi zero (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
In fact, btw, my memory on that particular detail turns out to be somewhat faulty: the Turkey category seems to have quite a messy history, with regard to which regions it was in. It appears that, at least in that particular case, when I started long-term projects to straighten out our categorization in the archives, I chose to pursue the categorization of Turkey articles as its regionalization then stood. --Pi zero (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)