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 don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
James Nicoll

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–       2016          

Analysis of Original Reporting[edit]

Ok, In Re: Congress to consider H.R. 5321, I request you to clarify a few things, for a more concrete understanding of your position. having added a couple new clarifying sources (specifically the text of Fed. R. Crim. P. 41, both as in effect, and as to be amended} It seems that the sources provide for every essential element of information to be had, unless there's specific information in the article you would like to be sourced, which I would appreciate you mentioning. (for the moment, I am the issue of Senator Brindenstine's letter as its own issue to be addressed in order, I'm specifically here talking about inclusion of other sources which that letter doesn't cover in and of itself) As for the text of the rules, they come from undisputed sources, and while I could include multiple cites to the same material, to do so would be overly redundant, as several different places on the web contain identical copies.) It appears to me that source wise, about everything is covered, without resorting to redundancy, though I could perhaps cite to other stories on the same subject. As for Rep. Brindenstine's letter, if you have any better suggestions as to how you would like me to proffer that letter without compromising email account security, I'm all ears. I have access to the original email at the moment, and I'm willing to consider your suggestions on alternate means of approaching the situation. As for issues with style, what other pertinent information may be included in your opinion, that establishes any thing uniquely new from what's already there, that would so much as be relevant to the story? It would seem to me that one would want the story to read relatively fast, with the intro paragraph being rather subtle and leading in, as opposed to being a giant block of wordy text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScruffMcGruff007 (talkcontribs) 23:08, 3 July 2016

Process to become a reviewer[edit]

Your job as a reviewer and what it entails seems interesting to me.

Knowing myself (as someone who just joined Wikinews), I know I can't apply for reviewer rights yet but I must ask:

I read the requirements to become a reviewer: one of which is "gaining reputation".

How can this be accomplished?


Keithman3 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Basically, you contribute. We see what you do, how you do it, how you behave... we get to know you; we get an impression of you by interacting with you over time. Some of us, of course, interact with you more directly than others. The "paper trail" you leave behind, and the comments by those who have interacted with you more directly, are what less-directly-engaged Wikinewsies would go by. Somewhat related link: WN:Never assume. --Pi zero (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
How can I go about fulfilling that requirement, if I choose to start now?

Keithman3 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The only reason I ask is to maybe become a reviewer and help around here, since you seem to be running a one-man show.
Keithman3 (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

gee, isn't that interesting- to elect "Reviewers" based upon being a member of some sort of clique, which lends toward reviewers not acting with a reasonable impartiality, especially toward new users. Seems highly inappropriate, given what the site is supposed to be. ScruffMcGruff007 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

<waxes philosophical for a moment> Neutrality and reliability are only possible for an open community if it has a specially-trusted set of individuals at the core; in the case of news reporting, without a trusted core what you've got is essentially blogging, which has either zero journalistic credibility or, arguably, less than zero. The obvious danger is corruption of the trusted core (an argument likely to be trotted out by those trying to do things the trusted core exists to protect the community from); this obvious danger is best averted by one or another form of community selection of the core. Wikinews has a remarkably successful system for selecting its trusted core, due in part to the fact that the entire community is oriented around earned reputation but, realistically, also thanks to the nature of our task: producing neutral, reliable reports of factual events with sourcing radically out in the open. Very visible and, on a relative scale, highly objective. Much more objective than the task of Wikipedia, which has subjectivity built into what it's trying to do; an encyclopedia summarizes knowledge of all kinds, consequently much of the knowledge is subjective and the choice of how to summarize it is subjective. And Wikipedia has, in turn, an easier task than, say, a real-world government, where there's no limit to how murkily subjective things can get and no way to pass off the most difficult problems to someone else. </philosophy>

Keithman3: One rule of thumb is, it's not time to consider reviewership until you're routinely writing aritcles that have no real problems. Beyond that, everyone has to follow their instincts, on a case-by-case basis. I can see you're improving; let's just give it time and see where that leads. We had someone here a few months back who did really well and we gave them the review bit — and after doing one review they seem to have decided it wasn't for them. We've known for many years we need to make the review task easier, and even had a major project split a few years ago over whether to do that by lowering standards or some other way (the lower-standards folks went elsewhere, had their chance to try it, and discovered it doesn't work). My plan is to make possible, and then make real, semi-automated assistants for all aspects of the project; and I have the ability to do that but it takes time, while meanwhile the review queue has to be kept moving.

@ScruffMcGruff007:: Your input wasn't necessary nor helpful especially due to the fact I was addressing @Pi zero:.
You seem to show distaste for him - which is fine - but I only ask that you refrain from trying to express it in questions like this. Your input is welcome; but it should at least be helpful.

Keithman3 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Keithman3:: How is it not necessary or helpful to point out the fact that what is supposed to be "peer" review appears to be some sort of "administrative" review. Given the basic concept of "Peer" review, the task should be equally available to ALL members of the applicable peer group, otherwise the whole process gets muddled down with inappropriate office-style politics, that tend to give reviewers the appearance of being subjective in their reviews, which is inappropriate for this type of forum. I'm just simply pointing out to you, that if it involves the mentality of "who you know" and "Who likes you", then its really not worth it to even bother, because its nothing more than a rigged sham at the end of the day. Just a word of practical advice.
@ScruffMcGruff007: You are allowed to have your opinion, and I can see what you mean.
I, though, make it into my long-term goals despite the "reputation" thing.
If everyone reviewed every article, there would be chaos. Maybe there it is a different process than its name states, however I respect the fact that Reviewers should be known in the community for their good article writing as well as knowledge of Wikinews policy.
If you're going to be reviewing an article, you've got to know what you're doing. People like Pi zero have been doing things like this for a long time, and I appreciate a review from a person like that WAY more than a member who just joined Wikinews.
Also, the people you know are going to be deciding whether to appoint you as a reviewer, so yes, you do need to know lots of people who can vouch for your reviewership application.
Keithman3 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Swap on Main Page[edit]

Lead article 2 has small lede. (On my cellphone, a big gap appears since lead article 3 has bigger lede. How about swapping 2 and 5 (or probably 2 with 1?)
acagastya 03:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Is showing two sentences any better? --Pi zero (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Better in the landscape orientation. (Now I know why editors have a copy of the Main Page).
acagastya 03:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The problem persists. I leave it up to you but I would have swapped 1-2.
acagastya 15:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

del Bosque's article to be renamed[edit]

Since he has three weeks left in his contact, please rename the article without leaving a redirect.
acagastya 18:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Acagastya: What do you want it renamed to? --Pi zero (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
del Bosque to quit Spanish team management after contract expiry
acagastya 04:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Final piece added to China's new radio telescope[edit]

Just wanted to clarify that I read the sources incorrectly; I believe the entire telescope is the size of thirty football fields. Keithman3 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Area versus diameter? That might explain it, yes (though I suspect it's a pretty rough number). --Pi zero (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC

Trump celbrates Brexit vote[edit]

I believe that the article is mainly the words of the Sacremento Bee, specifically:

Article: TURNBERRY, Scotland- U.S. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump hailed the vote for Britain to leave the European Union on June 24, in Ayrshire, Scotland, stating that the people of the UK had finally "taken their country back."

SB: TURNBERRY, Scotland - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump celebrated Britain's stunning vote to leave the European Union Friday in Ayrshire, Scotland, saying that the people of the United Kingdom have "taken their country back."

Article: His two-day visit to Scotland, comes at a historical moment, when UK voters defied the political establishment, and voted to leave the European Union. The vote, which trump called a "fantastic thing", and "historic", had immediate political and economic repercussions around the world.

SB: His two-day visit to Scotland comes during a historic and tumultuous moment for the United Kingdom. Voters defied the political establishment Thursday by formally deciding to cut ties with the European Union. The vote, which Trump called a "fantastic thing" and "historic," had immediate political and economic repercussions in the United Kingdom and around the world.

Please respond as to what you believe. Keithman3 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Those look like serious plagiary problems, yes. I don't know of any automated tool that would recognize the problem, but it leaps out for an English-fluent human reader. --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina[edit]

I was going to add editprotected tonight. Thanks for populating it.
acagastya 12:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Congress to consider H.R. 5321, the 'Stop Mass Hacking Act'[edit]

I was going to mark this abandoned but decided to the contrary due to its many submissions for review.

Is this technically an abandoned article? I do question its freshness as of now, due to the bill's introduction being June 25. Keithman3 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

@Keithman3: It hasn't been edited for more than four days, so it seems a straightforward case of abandonment. (There are less-than-straightforward cases, but most are simple, as this one.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Five police officers killed in Dallas, Texas during sniper attack[edit]

I think this picture could be good on the main page for that article.

It is File:Police Lights.jpg

Keithman3 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Military Veterans Face Large Challenges Post-Service[edit]

Did I do the editorial cleanup correctly, or is that something only admins are supposed to do? Keithman3 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Keithman3: The points you raise seem reasonable. I added a couple of points. As for who makes such suggestions, well, we don't stand on a lot of protocol (there are some rules that are non-negotiable, but many things here are more flexible). The real arbiters are reviewers (we've had admins who aren't reviewers, as well as reviewers who aren't admins). It's possible for a non-reviewer to kind of overstep and give dubious advice, but your advice wasn't unreasonable. As you've likely noticed there's be a bit of a time gap in review just recently, and your advice is certainly more timely than the writer would have gotten otherwise. --Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I made some edits to cut the editorial cleanup of about 2/3 of the points. If you would like to delete the article you can, I just wanted to let you know. It seems like I'm the only contributor... Keithman3 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it the JavaScript[edit]

Two times the template (about the sister) was removed when edit summary has a link to this script (User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js). I will be checking it this evening.
acagastya 04:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the script is causing the problem. I have asked the user to fix it.
acagastya 08:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Ohconfucious is, historically, an anti-Wikinews agitator, and has a long history of blocks on en.wp for edit-warring, block evasion, and whatnot. --Pi zero (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah! I say to myself: "Bot. Scripts. Kill. Me!"
acagastya 10:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The reply is: Most WP articles are more all-encompassing and better sourced than Wikinews articles on the same o related subjects. I'd be interested to know if you managed to find any links that are useful to Wikipedia readers that the script removed? I don't think blindly claiming fraternal relations matter when it is of no service to Wikipedia users. I guess someone has no idea how to write scripts.
acagastya 08:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
It should be clear, at this point, that attempting rational conversation with that person would be a waste of time. That's someone who starts with opinions and then invents "facts" to support them. There are (btw) two varieties of such people: the ones who don't care whether the stuff they invent is true — that's Harry Frankfurt's technical definition of bullshit — and the ones who, having invented it, then proceed to believe it. There's a terminology breakdown, there; according to the usual definitions, it's only a "lie" if the speaker knows it isn't true, and it's only "bullshit" if the speaker doesn't care whether it's true. If they invent it but then believe it, sometimes they're said to be "believe their own lies", or "believe their own bullshit", but those are awkward phrases to get around the lack of a simple name for this. I've toyed with the term "dogmatic fabrication", but it's not very satisfying as a term.

Of course, if one were bothering with rationality, it's outright nonsensical to apply the article criteria of Wikipedia — criteria chosen to promote the peculiar purposes of Wikipedia — to articles of a different project; to do so is to ignore the different purposes of different sister projects, which result in different content criteria and guarantee that readers consult those projects for different reasons. Most Wikipedia articles would fail miserably if stacked up against Wikinews article criteria (even if style were entirely ignored), and this is predictably true for the content of any two sister projects. Which only highlights the arrogant destructive foolishness of any sister project trying to use its own quality-judgements of other sisters' content to suppress sister links. But all that would only matter to them if they were open to rationality, which evidently they aren't. As I've remarked before, there's no point in arguing with such fools; it would only detract from the time we spend on Wikinews, which would make them happy. --Pi zero (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote![edit]

Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2016 election/Nominations and voting --Bddpaux (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

ASCII problem[edit]

As I had to use Microsoft Word, the ASCII problem of *'* has occurred. Please remember that. I am preparing the quiz. Do you have some questions for on the campaign trial?
acagastya 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I have uploaded the quiz on my sandbox. User:acagastya/sandbox#July 21 Quiz. I haven't created questions about On the campaign trail article. Since I am travelling, I really doubt if I can find some good questions in the mean time. Will try my best.
acagastya 16:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Quiz and mail[edit]

How do we get this available Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2016/30? Plus, I have sent you a mail.
acagastya 11:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Trial trail. Autocorrect! But I remember preparing ten questions! Need to check...
acagastya 07:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Missing pipes was the reason one question was missing and one having three options. (Did you get the (eighth) question correct?)
acagastya 14:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost. Which question? The current eighth question, which wasn't visible before, I actually overlooked when I took the quiz. I tried that question just now (before making a copyedit to it), and got it right. (When copyediting the file before, I accidentally saw the answer to one question, so I counted that one as "wrong" since I'd no way of knowing whether I would have gotten it right.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Do u like my article how do feel about .Mikael
Mikael Phillips (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mikael Phillips: You should read WN:Writing an article. --Pi zero (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Something that I consider my achievement[edit]

I visited the Main Page thrice before I noticed I had significant contribution to the last five articles. Feels good to have this feat again especially on July 25. (Well it was the 25th in India when the article was published) Face-grin.svg.
acagastya 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Forbes (paywall?)[edit]

Please check this link:<be>Let me know if it is accessible. By the way, Forbes's website is a bit notorious. Need to try thrice to access the content.
acagastya 11:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Accessible, afaict atm. --Pi zero (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for informing. Well, quiz to be uploaded today. (Lot of sports article this week :(
acagastya 12:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

From Buenos Aires to France: Week of July 30 to August 5 in photos[edit]

Hi... From roughly 2005 to 2010, people would regularly do "News briefs", short blurbs summarizing the day's stories on Wikinews. I was wondering if rather than summarizing other articles, whether a weekly photo feature might be of interest. Basically, I've been searching Wikimedia Commons categories like "Photographs taken on 2016-08-01" and the recent changes for new categories with 2016 in the title, and figuring out what is newsish. What are your thoughts on the format? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(Should I pitch it on the Water cooler? Do people look there, to get a wider audience? -- Zanimum (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC))

@Zanimum: Some thoughts.
  • I don't think a collection of pictures accumulated on Commons is a news article. It sounds like something Commons could do if they wished, but not our place; there's no focus, which makes it not a news article per se, and as a collection its unifying characteristic is, as noted, Commons-related rather than news related. So it seems to me.
  • We had a user here a while back who found they just weren't good at synthesis, and so they (very intelligently, thinking back) looked for some other form they'd be good at. They eventually found they could do interviews rather well, and as I recall at least one of their articles reached Featured status; but in the meantime, they experimented with photo essays, and after some unpleasant experiences we devised some additional constraints on how photo essays should be done — I've a feeling the additional constraints may not have been dwelt on long enough to get written into the guidelines, but I think part of it was that the photos in a photo essay should be taken by the author (or maybe that's not quite it, but very like).
  • As best I've understood, news briefs were summaries of other things published; shorts were collections of small items. We've dabbled in shorts from time to time over the last few years but found they don't fit well with our modern review workflow; basically, a collection of shorts takes substantially as much effort to write and to review as a collection of articles on the individual stories, and if something goes wrong it can hold up the whole set which makes it cumbersome to tie them together.
  • We do discuss things on the water cooler, yes; but, lately, most of the time there simply aren't that many folks around. Blood Red Sandman, brianmc, and I are the veterans most often around (how the heck did I become an "oldtimer"?), and atm BRS hasn't been around for some months and brianmc doesn't come around often.
  • In the big picture: I have a plan for growing Wikinews, which is broadly described at User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters (I plan a companion essay specifically about Wikinews, but haven't got it written yet). I've been working for a good four years now on dialog tools, and am now slowly easing into the next phase of the operation which is semi-automated assistants; it's time for me to start integrating context-sensitive assistance into all pages, which should eventually lead to interactive meta-assistance (interactive assistance for building/maintaining interactive assistants). And meanwhile I keep the review queue moving (which is obviously necessary to the tool development but also slows it down).
--Pi zero (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Zanimum: I do see the article you've been working on appears to be really shorts; but they're shorts getting increasingly old, which isn't how we've usually done shorts unless there's something to tie them together: each short would get judged for freshness on its own merits, which is not the concept you've been working on. So I see you've got a different concept again, something halfway between a traditional shorts collection and a Commons-driven thing. I'm in doubt; it doesn't quite grab me, as a concept, but I find myself wishing BRS or somebody were around atm to see what they think of it. --Pi zero (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Quiz Publication[edit]

Week 32 quiz is ready. But how do I submit it for review each week. I don't think pinging is a good idea.
acagastya 14:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • By the way, can the user pages be biased like the one here User:ISLAMIST HILLARY CLINTON. The content is offensive, of course not neutral. Plus, is the username acceptable?
    acagastya 14:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Paul Pogba[edit]

The article is not lengthy and it would not consume much time. If you have an hour free just before the day changes per the UTC, please consider this article.
acagastya 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Noted. --Pi zero (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
No worries if you don't want a sports article for today. I don't feel I have right to ask for a priority review, showing up after so many days. (Got relocated since I changed the college and didn't have internet connection. Don't know when we will have Wi-Fi connection). I feel bad about losing Michael Phelps's nineteenth gold). By the way, hi!
acagastya 19:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Alas, verification problems. --Pi zero (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah. It was the Juventus source. Enough. From the next time, of I am not using {{translated quote}}, I am not listing non English sources for transfers.
acagastya 03:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Croatian Wikinews (Wijesti)[edit]

Dear Pi zero, I saw that you're a bureaucrat on the english wikinews and I hope that you can help me. The URL of all Wikinews is, but the URL of the croatian wikinews is why is it like that and how can I fix this? MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@MateoKatanaCRO: A proposed project is first set up on the incubator, and if it demonstrates enough activity it can then apply to be upgraded to a standalone project. That url means Croatian Wikinews is still on the incubator. A place to start reading about the incubator, and how to get a project out of it, is the Meta page Incubator. Hope that helps. --Pi zero (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Broken button???[edit]

Just reviewed a story (car racer dies) and tried to push it out to mains.......but it isn't showing up. What gives? --Bddpaux (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bddpaux: Do you mean, the review tab doesn't appear? Try reloading the page. If, after the page is completely finished loading and you give it another second or two, the review tab still doesn't appear, try reloading it again. I'm not sure if I've ever had to do that more than twice, but it's definitely getting worse. The javascript for the whole site has been on the fritz for, I think, months now. The devs have been talking for months now about how javascript needs to be updated because some deprecated features will stop working later this year, but when asked point-blank what those features are, so far we've gotten no answer. The one thing that works reliably is my dialog tools, which are — to use a very old phrase — built like a brick shithouse. I've long hoped I could replace the review tool with something based on my dialog tools before it breaks entirely; well, evidently I need to make that soon. --Pi zero (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nuking the pages[edit]

Have a look at the contributions. Need to nuke the pages and block the editor.
acagastya 00:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Other way around: block first, and then nuke; otherwise, it's possible they could create more spam after the nuke and before the block. --Pi zero (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, what is the URL of nuking pages of an editor, let us say User:Example?
acagastya 00:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
For User:Example~enwikinews (which was deliberately created as User:Example long ago to prevent that username from being used, and then renamed during the recent braindead accounts unification process), Special:Nuke/Example~enwikinews (parallel to Special:Contributions/Example~enwikinews). --Pi zero (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, who cane up with Did last week go by in a blur, or do you remember your current affairs? Take the World News Quiz!?
acagastya 02:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the sitenotice history, it's hard to be absolutely certain but looks like it started here. --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


I think there is a problem with the Special:BrokenRedirects page. I tagged some pages for deletion, but it seems that the redirects aren't broken, as they show links to existent pages. --Queen Laura (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I think it was just a mistake on my part, the page is not malfunctioning. --Queen Laura (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Those special pages sometimes behave bizarrely due to lagging internal cache updates (so it seems). --Pi zero (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


The structure is similar to Bastian Schweinsteiger's retirement news article. I hope we get it today. I am sorry fort not uploading the quiz. Was busy and I lost track of time. (What an I supposed to do?)
acagastya 18:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I've demonstrated for several days straight now that I can't leave William Saturn's article to the end of the day and then do a bit of work on it, so I determined to spend the afternoon on it — and I've managed to not get to it for the past three solid hours. I want to spend at least an hour or two on it now before I tackle other things. I might get to yours before midnight UTC; no idea atm. --Pi zero (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The headline says fotball, FYI. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Zanimum (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

(Aw, crap.) Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, is a football match report fresh today, of it was completed on August 14, CEST?
acagastya 12:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Problematic, because there are other articles that would likely get higher review priority so it wouldn't get processed in time. In theory, if it did get reviewed before midnight UTC, it might be considered fresh if there weren't any special consideration that would make it stale. --Pi zero (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
No harm in trying. If I manage to finish my assignments, I will submit the article. I won't make it lengthy. Let's see. But I don't have my laptop to speed up.
acagastya 12:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Page Tag Bot"[edit]

That's fake, and not actually a bot (I have seen it on other wikis). Computer Fizz (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. --Pi zero (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I technically don't know this for sure, but given that it made three edits on two wikis at about a human's speed, it's safe to say this.
Also, can you explain to me what Wikinews is? I mean it's obvious a news site of some sort but how's it different? Computer Fizz (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

acagastya 13:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Nuked. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think placing a nuke message all time is a good idea. How about creating a template called Admin action, which displays this message? I will create in my userspace to try it. Thoughts?
acagastya 19:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand. If I update User:Acagastya/Admin actions; the template on my talk would not update though I haven't substituted it. Does it needs o be purged? (tried but didn't work) (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC) (Yup, acagastya)
So, if I'm understanding rightly, you modified the transcluded page, and the transcluding page didn't update. This is usual. You need to purge the transcluding page. I purged the talk page myself, just now. Historically (and in this case), the way I've done that is using the UTC real-time clock gadget, but, one, you can't use an optional gadget if you aren't logged in, and two, all the gadgets are on the fritz for the past few months thanks to the devs (and it's only expected to get worse; I have some things in mind that might help at least to containerize that, if I ever have time to try them (wouldn't prevent any given gadget from failing, but might prevent them from killing javascript entirely). --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Will it be resolved of we add a purge button, just like one next to the latest news section on the main page? (BTW, I had tried by IP as well as my account, but didn't work) (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC) (yes, acagastya)
That should work, although I've noticed the current problems with javascript cause those buttons to work more clumsily than they ought. --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nuke (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC) (yup, acagastya)

It seems that infobox is working properly. Is it because of DPL?
acagastya 12:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Nuke after blocking the user.
acagastya 19:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Jasper Cillessen[edit]

Luckily, I have enough time to complete the article today. It won't be lengthy. But I need help. I can't see the title of the Instagram page which is not visible in the mobile application of Instagram and Mozilla Firefox. Please add it.
acagastya 12:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking weather to merge Claudio Bravo's article but considering they are not the two sides of a coin and instead, three vertices of the triangle, I have arrived to the conclusion that it would be better if they are separate.
acagastya 15:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The Monday afternoon meeting Moskovisi with Greek economic team[edit]

Hi!because I have nothing to say. If you think he may not remain deleted . One question , what do you mean that we do not have the gift of prophecy, to know with certainty what will happen in the future? Who said accurately ? So says the ministry and sources .--Βικιδημοσιογράφος (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Βικιδημοσιογράφος: We don't know what is going to happen in the future. We can know that someone has said they plan for something to happen, but we can't know whether things will actually turn out that way. Lots of things, large and small, might keep things from happening the way they were planned to happen. Somebody might get a head cold, and be unable to attend that day; then they might reschedule, or might send someone else in their place. An asteroid might strike the Earth on Sunday. So we are careful not to say definitely that something planned is definitely going to happen.

I do hope you'll be able to write more later. (Perhaps after the meeting on Monday?) --Pi zero (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right. You and humor ! LOL! Asteroid , meteorite . It can be done and the Second Coming . Nobody knows.Until Monday what I can do?--Wikijournalist (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@Βικιδημοσιογράφος: A planned meeting can also be interrupted by things of medium size, like an airline workers strike that prevents someone from attending. A head cold for one of the principals is an especially small reason for plans to be altered; I might have read about a case like that once, I think involving Turkey. I think it was Turkey because we had only a mention of it in a source written in Turkish, and an automatic translator so badly garbled it — as usual — that it came out as something about decapitating someone (not even decapitating the person who was sick, I think). Well, that's an example of why we don't put much trust in automatic translators.

It is sometimes possible to write a news article about somebody announcing something, to be published before the announced thing happens. The act of announcing the thing becomes the focal event. Many of our sports-player trading articles are like that: such-and-such team announced on Friday they have signed such-and-such player. The actually signing might not happen on Friday; it might happen later, after medical tests, or it might have happened earlier in the week and was was only announced on Friday. One difficulty with an article like that is, the announcement itself has to be, in itself, a newsworthy event; not all announcements are important enough to matter. --Pi zero (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed . Can someone die ( example , not the wish ) . Do whatever you want.--Wikijournalist (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Yup. I hesitated to mention that one, because it's plausible and sad. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Monday if done then we write in more detail . And imagine that it will pass. I will look and English source.--Wikijournalist (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)