User talk:Pi zero

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

Omit needless words.
William Strunk, Jr.

Archive
2008–2010
Jan–May 2011
Jun–Dec 2011
Jan–Jun  2012
Jul –Dec 2012
Jan–Jul   2013
Aug–Nov 2013 
Dec 2013–Aug 2014          
Sep 2014–Jun  2015          
Jul –Oct  2015
Nov 2015–       2016          



Gündogan signs Manchester City[edit]

  • There are six paragraphs in the article, third and fourth being quotes only.
  • Third para (quote) is from Manchester City's source. Fourth paragraph is from Borussia Dortmund's source.

45 minutes?
acagastya 12:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was depressed today. Nothing good happened in the whole day. Then I got the story to improve. Thanks for reviewing it, giving it priority above others. Thank you! Something to cheer for.
But yes, I did want to say that moving the page without leaving a redirect make a bitlink point to a deleted article. I really wish it was a college day and I could be there on IRC.I want to discuss something.
acagastya 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to inform...[edit]

Copa América 2016 has started in the US. UEFA Euro still has six days to begin. I can't submit the article of today's match before 5:30 PM UTC since I am not at home. But one article submission each day.
acagastya 08:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me. I can only try, but it really does help to know what's coming. --Pi zero (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Things are not working out. I remember once you told me that if it was possible, you would split yourself into four to review [the four articles which were about to lose freshness]. Now I know how it feels. Things are not working out, I failed to start six articles. Plus, in the current scenario, I don't think I would be able to submit football articles. I might cover the knock-out phase if time permits. Sorry.
acagastya 17:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Headline[edit]

"Brisbane man granted bail after charged with rape of 15-year-old girl" is not a proper title since "after charged with rape" does not make sense. If we follow the usual love of the mid-headline comma (virtually unknown in the UK, incidentally, so an alien form to me), we could have "Brisbane man charged with rape of 15-year-old girl, granted bail", which also highlights the main issues in order of chronology and, arguably, importance. Bencherlite (talk) (from alt account) 15:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's awkward; I'll give it further thought. --Pi zero (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit filed against Ed Sheeran for his single Photograph[edit]

Though sources have much to tell, I don't feel like increasing the content for the synthesis. Let me know if it crosses minimal length.
acagastya 10:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

That looks below minimum, tbh. --Pi zero (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Will grow it later. I am moving it to main space if someone else wants to collaborate...
acagastya 11:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"Develop To Review Button"[edit]

Hi, the "DevelopToReviewButton" ({{develop}}) depends on User:Bawolff/mwapilib2.js. That script is old and will stop working later this year. In the worst case scenario, it would throw JavaScript errors that prevents not just itself, but even other JavaScript from working. --SleaY (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed {{source}} listed at the bottom would not appear in the rest area when I click it. <please check if it acts the same for you or is it problem with my Firefox browser>
acagastya 15:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

{{Microsoft}}[edit]

Shouldn't the template be protected allowing the customisation elsewhere? Currently, nine archived stories use the infobox.
acagastya 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. --Pi zero (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft[edit]

"seems like we'd do better /not/ to use logos when we can avoid such; it's kind of advertising, and visually not so interesting" ... but a picture of an old Microsoft logo on a sign is visually interesting? It's basically the same thing (both are logos), but one inaccurately represents the company since it is outdated. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a better picture? --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but should we use consistency between all tech companies? Google and Apple both use logos. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps they oughtn't. There's always plenty of stuff that could be improved, so just because a bunch of things do it doesn't mean it's the best choice. --Pi zero (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I found three pictures that may be better than the current one: File:Microsoft buildings EU.jpg, File:Microsoft European HQ - Paris.jpg, and File:Microsoft building 17 front door tj.png. Which one do you believe would be the best one? I'm leaning toward Microsoft buildings EU.jpg. – Nascar1996 (talkcont) 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I rather like the EU one too. --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

about Help to develop Farmer[edit]

Hi dear friend, Will you known that, Farmers are a Frist Doctor of of the world because they grow raw materials of medicine and providing food too us.

So, many people are talking about Farmers but never Respecting them. We have many society to respect to Farmers by Providing National Farmers Day.

Your sincere Dev Dhawal Members of Fsc Rupandehi Dev Dhawal (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The rules of football[edit]

Hello Pi zero, I am interested by your interpretation of the rules of football which has led you to a conclusion that fouling a player in your penalty area doesn't result in the award of a penalty kick against you. Which version of the rules are you looking at?! Whichever one it is, it is not a version that anyone in Euro 2016 is using. From your knowledge of the rules of football, then, why was the penalty kick awarded? If it would help to watch the incident, so I can understand where the referee went wrong, try this video from 6:30 in. Bencherlite (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

That is not what I said about the rules. The synthesis passage in question says he was shown a yellow card for bringing down another player in the penalty area. I tried but failed to verify, from the sources provided, that the bringing-down was in the penalty area; so I removed such assertion. You proposed to add back in the part about it being in the penalty area, with the edit summary "you only win a penalty if the foul was in the penalty area" (emphasis added). Certainly if the Rules of the Game say bringing down another player outside the penalty area would not result in a free kick, then from the fact that a free kick was awarded one could reasonably deduce that the incident took place inside the penalty area. So I consulted the Rules of the Game; but the Rules, as I read them, said bringing down another player is worth a free kick. With no qualification about whether it happened within the penalty area. I think there was some other infraction the rules said was only worth a free kick if it happened in the penalty box, but there was no such restriction on bringing down another player. Therefore, from the fact that a free kick was awarded for bringing down another player, I was unable to deduce, based on the Rules, that the bringing-down would have had to be in the penalty area. --Pi zero (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
It is beyond my time and patience to explain football in detail to you. Only fouls inside the penalty area result in a penalty kick. Fouling another player inside the penalty area does not result in a free kick, but in a penalty kick. Fouls outside the penalty area result in a free kick. Fouls outside the penalty area do not result in a penalty kick. A penalty kick was awarded because of this foul on Ronaldo. Therefore it was a foul in the penalty area. It is such a basic point about how football is played that it does not need further sourcing. (I'm trying to think of a US sport equivalent - a home run in baseball is only scored if you go round all the bases, so if we know that X scored a home run, we know by definition he went round all the bases. Similarly, by definition, as this was a penalty kick, the foul did not happen outside the penalty area). If this is still controversial (I promise you, it isn't) or difficult to follow, see the video link of the incident posted above, where you will see for yourself what millions of people watching the game saw, or ask Acagastya (t · c · b) to educate you further. Bencherlite (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
On other occasions you've been extremely helpful on Wikinews, and I value that help. Occasionally things don't go so smoothly; I don't know why. Alas, in this case, the video link you provided isn't suitable for use as a source unless one could show it isn't pirated (I suspect it is pirated, which would make it hard to show it isn't); while the video acagastya just submitted as a source doesn't work (page reports the video unavailable). Meanwhile, we're approaching the 24-hour horizon after which substantive additions would no longer be permitted. --Pi zero (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Excellent, you're playing the man not the ball. I'm not suggesting adding the video as a source - I'm just using it for your reference / information. But feel free to concentrate on the merits of the sourcing of the video rather than anything else, and to stonewall until the 24 hours are up and you can win by default even though you are in the minority here. Cheers, and feel free to ask for help next time you don't understand how football is played. Bencherlite (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Wtf? Wikinews collaboration cannot succeed if it's adversarial; when a writer treats a reviewer as "the enemy", everyone loses. The article never got improved. If you think I consider that a win, you're deluding yourself. --Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Commas[edit]

FWIW, this was something my editor and I argued over, back when I was in the business: "Orlando, Florida, nightclub" and "June 10, 2016, shooting" (to use two examples) are correct. I was told we use AP style, which isn't. I wrote it correctly anyway just to make him "fix" it. 🖖ATS / Talk 21:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a prescriptivist, although I do recognize there are some conventions that are worth favoring as they serve some useful function (actually, I see the no-comma convention serving a more useful function in this case). We don't use AP style, of course — we use the Wikinews:Style guide, which is crafted for brevity rather than detail so it can realistically be read through in a single session. There's one (unremarked) example in the style guide that does a date your way (shrug). But honestly the article has other problems that actually matter, which make the point about commas vanishingly trivial, either way. Just keep in mind that good-natured interplay is all very well within reason but, whatever fun you and your editor may have had, on Wikinews the single most underavailable resource is reviewer labor. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Gotcha. 🖖ATS / Talk 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Conventions have changed, it seems, from what I was taught; for example, we never ever started a story with a date or an "according to" because it buries the lede. Or am I too removed from my former profession (he said, thankfully)? xD 🖖ATS / Talk 23:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I've never worked in journalism, though I have by now an appalling amount of experience as a Wikinews reviewer. The "According to" isn't ideal, but... my reasoning is that the party who acted on Wednesday was the police; the focal event is the police released a report. I'd first tried to say something like "A report said", or "In a report, police said", but it wasn't working because the sentence came out with a distressing lack of commas that make it hard to parse. I also wanted the date toward the front if possible, as I tend to treat it as quite important (though many news services these days seem to have forgotten it's one of the five Ws at all). As another Wikinewsie noted at WN:Five Ws and H, if the lede doesn't contain a "day" word, such as "today", "yesterday", "Tuesday", etc., there's probably something wrong. Besides the whole five-Ws thing, we also ask that the lede establish newsworthiness, one of the elements of which is freshness which usually can't be established without saying which day the focal event happened. --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The lede is indeed to establish newsworthiness—and the focal point (at least, using the way I was taught over a decade-plus in the business) is not that OPD released a summary (it's not a report, BTW, the better phrase would be "according to details" or "according to new details") but that the perp was an infatuated fan who lived like a hermit, according to that summary. For example, the Associated Press focused on the obsession ...

Kevin Loibl, the man Orlando Police detectives say fatally shot Grimmie as she was signing autographs after a concert, spent most of his time watching Grimmie on YouTube and that he constantly monitored her social media accounts, his friend, Cory Dennington, told detectives.

... first hitting what's new, then its source. 🖖ATS / Talk 23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If we combined your notes and my training, the lede would read:

The man who murdered Christina Grimmie following a June 10 concert lived "like a hermit" and had never met the singer, but was infatuated with her and had spent the previous three months changing his appearance in an effort to win her over, according to new details released by police in Orlando, Florida.

🖖ATS / Talk 23:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I raher like that version, actually. Though I expect either would work sufficiently, and expect to mull it over in my backbrain at relative leisure.

(Side note: I do aspire to avoid prescriptivism, but admit I cringed every time I read in the police document "laying" for "lying". :-) --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm right there with you, fellow pedant ... xDDD 🖖ATS / Talk 00:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch[edit]

Wups, my bad. Here's the correct source for the public memorial:

🖖ATS / Talk 00:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Session expired on IRC[edit]

Just lost connection, but yeah: good night!
acagastya 04:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Football title[edit]

Wales Northern vs Ireland? Really? Bencherlite (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Would have been helpful to put the remark on the article talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Playing the man not the ball again, I see. Ungracious and unbecoming of you. Bencherlite (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Generally I (and others, from remarks I've heard) appreciate your help but find your manner rather... grating, perhaps (though mean-spirited might be a more subjectively descriptive choice). I've found myself defending you more than once, to relative newcomers to Wikinews, as a useful contributor who has a gruff manner, and an example of the colorful variety of unique personalities one finds on Wikinews. I make an effort to be more gracious to you than your manner has come across to me, in hopes that would tend to damp out positive feedback loops. Sometimes it works, other times no so much; it's harder when you come across to me especially grating, and like most of my human relations it's hampered by my impulse to treat other people like highly rational beings and tell the truth to them (perhaps you can imagine how badly that works in most situations). It often seems as if you enjoy complaining about others here being stupid and unreasonable, so you devise excuses to portray them so (see how badly that works?). In this case the impression is a bit vague because your two recent uses of the expression "playing the man and not the ball" are the only times in my life I recall having heard such an expression and I have no clear guess what it means beyond likely fitting into some preferred prejudice of yours about what you want me to mean. --Pi zero (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I really don't have the time or energy to defend myself against your hearsay accounts of off-wiki complaints. Please remove my reviewer bit and correct your own mistakes in future: I count several in Griezmann signs contract extension with Atlético Madrid ("announced contract extension" is bad English; "played the UEFA Champions League final" is missing the word "in"; "scored seven goals in reaching the finals" confuses singular and plural and is missing a "." – although to balance this out, "After contract extension." has a stray "." but is missing some words, to make it something like "After announcing the contract extension,"; and finally "Mundo Deportivo" should be in italics). And that is it - a sadly not-untypical list of avoidable errors in a short article. Over and out. Bencherlite (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant to communicate a positive message, that I respect you enough to defend you. I'm sorry if that looked from your side like a hearsay attack. --Pi zero (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

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?

Thanks,

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 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 insticts, 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)