# User talk:Pi zero/Archive 1

## Welcome

Pi zero/Archive 1, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Skenmy talk 17:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

## em dashes

FYI: The em-dash is available as a character if you use the drop-down menu found below the edit window. If you change it from "Templates" to "Symbols" you will find a number of handy characters. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I ordinarily operate with javascript off, so that menu ordinarily isn't there for me (indeed, I wasn't aware of it). The menu's behavior does not, I observe, degrade particularly gracefully without javascript. Anyway, I'll keep it in mind; thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally I too use html entities like mdash and ndash instead of the menu options. Menus are only available on certain sites (like this one), while entities work nearly everywhere. Gopher65talk 03:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess this came up again ... I think the given tools should be used and it avoids the ugly syntax in edit mode. --SVTCobra 02:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
For spaced dashes I don't consider that syntax ugly at all, in fact I consider it mildly superior (since it explicitly spells out what it is). For unspaced dashes (which for me always means en dashes) I usually go to the bother of turning on javascript in order to access the menu; but even with javascript on I would more likely to use the entity names for spaced dashes. --Pi zero (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

## quiz

Thankyou for copy-editing the quiz. I am very disturbed by the fact that apparently I wrote the sentence: "Turned of the tap well brushing all teeth". (*shudder*). Cheers. Bawolff 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

## Wikinews:Editor

Hi, I notice you make a high number of copyedits here, mainly fixing mistakes. Currently these need to be flagged individually. I'd like to suggest you apply for Wikinews:Editor status, which would allow your edits to be auot-sighted so long as the revision before had been sighted. It would also allow you to review articles if you wanted to. You can nominate yourself at Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions and I see no reason why you wouldn't get the tools. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion. I'll consider it carefully. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

## You've been granted Editor status

I have promoted you to the Wikinews:Editor class, as I feel you can be trusted to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read:

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

```Tempodivalse [talk] 18:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
```

## Police confiscate valuables from unlocked cars

1. confiscate is, well, just wrong. It implies the owners of these items will not get them back.
2. 'steal' , for similar reasons, is technically wrong too - but the use of quotes indicates the word's usage is because it is the most convenient to impart the meaning of the action taken.

On the basis of the second point I would dispute your assertion that 'steal' violates NPOV. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

About "confiscate", you're quite right; I too hastily used the word that had been used in the article. I have amended this, both in the article and in its title, to remove.
I for one won't object if you wish to change the title back to 'steal' (although the article has already been renamed an awful lot). It would not be appropriate for me to do so, since I renamed it and then tagged it for review by someone else, and DragonFire1024 published it; the appearance would be that I'd renamed it to get it published and then changed it back. --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Meh, remove is factually accurate - it's just a nit that 'steal' is going to entice more readers. I'd only expect a policeman to argue it was POV. :-P And I really, really can't be bothered with the redirects. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

## Barnstar!

I, Tempo, award you the Copyeditor's Barnstar for your work copyediting our articles. Keep it up! Tempodivalse [talk] 01:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

## Review

Done --Pi zero (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

## Breaking review

Please can you review Three people arrested in connection with murder of shop owner in West Yorkshire, England? I would consider this to be breaking news. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I actually have another high-priority review article that I would like you to take a look at, if possible. Please could you review Up to 270,000 civil servants to go on strike in UK in March? Thanks --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry it doesn't matter now, it's already been reviewed by Microchip08 and it was published. Thanks for your help though! --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

## Review

Hi, can you review my article please? It's been sitting there all day and other than one edit, it hasn't been reviewed. Might this be because no one can read the Spanish sources? I wouldn't really think so considering there are page translators all over the internet. In any case, here is the article, Chile's President-elect's battle with delinquency becomes personal. I would appreciate your feedback. Cheers! --Soy Rebelde (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The time I can devote to Wikimedia is fairly limited, and I've already, of late, somewhat overspent my budget for some time to come. I hate not just leaping into action in response to this sort of request, especially from a first-time contributor, but... I honestly doubt that I can afford it.
On the particular article, there's no clear evidence of a sluggish-review problem just yet. Eight hours (last I saw) just isn't that unusual, although it would be nice if it were unusual. I won't tell you not to worry, as  (a) that's a cliche, and  (b) exactly because peer review is such a hefty task, reviewers often tend to take on just those articles they're most comfortable with — and you're right, the Spanish sources are probably off-putting, even with the availability of page translators (and the relatively small gap such translators need to bridge between Spanish and English). --Pi zero (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it might be the language barrier. A host of other articles that followed mine have been approved. I'll stick it out and see what happens. Thanks for your feedback. Cheers! --Soy Rebelde (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

## Bronx, New York church destroyed in suspicious blaze

Whoops, sorry about that, and thank you for assuming good faith on my behalf. Best wishes 94.169.115.107 (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

## Review

Mind finishing the review of Many people die in car bomb attack in Lahore, Pakistan? It's likely to get stale soon, so would be great if you could. Cheers, Pmlineditor discuss 16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm awfully sorry (not that that helps anything), but I can see now it's just not going to be possible for me. It looked as if there would to be some copyvio issues, so, hoping desperately for something safely within my time budget, I decided to try the second-oldest article in the queue (which, in the event, also took longer than I'd hoped). --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

## re "Rubber stamp"

It looks alarmingly as if you recently rubber-stamped a bunch of articles, publishing five in less than fifteen minutes. Our reputation — and therefore our future as a project — hinges on the fact that we absolutely will not ever publish an article without a rigorous review, even at the cost that some articles go stale and are ultimately deleted because they weren't peer-reviewed in time. (See Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2010/February#How to peer-review.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wholly incorrect assessment. I read and reviewed them earlier. They were up for over 10 hours or so. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. And yes, I was aware of about how long they'd been waiting. --Pi zero (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

## RfA

Hi there. I've noticed you making plenty of edits, and was surprised to see you're not an admin yet. Would you be interested in an RfA nomination? Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at this time, though I'm honored to be asked. Right now, I couldn't afford to spend more time on the project than I already do, so I wouldn't use it enough to balance the inevitably higher risk. (What my situation will be a few months from now, I have no idea.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're the first person to ever say no to that question, at least as far as I can remember. ;) Cheers, Bawolff 05:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. The offer stands so let me know if you ever change your mind. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

## Manatee Palms Youth Services

Hi Pi Zero, thanks for your help and assistance! When you say two independent sources, which source are you referring to that isn't independent? The newspaper or the government site? Sorry if that's an amateur thing to ask. Tkfy7cf (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I've answered this on your talk page (notwithstanding my own stated policy about answering here — well, you did ask there, too :-). --Pi zero (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

#### apparently related earlier post, moved here from top of page two months later

Dear Pi zero, could you please review the hospital article one more time? An additional source has been added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.253.47.176 (talkcontribs) 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

## AGF

Hi Pi zero, thanks for your thought-out comments at the DR request for this page; I agree with them. Could you look at this addition and see if it helps address the issues you raised? Thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It helps. I hope I'll find time to try my hand at some bold edits to the page myself. I used edits to published articles as an example in my renaming proposal, but I'm also concerned about the dangers in assuming good intentions when considering requests for permissions or accreditation. It's actually most important to assume good intentions when considering removal of permissions etc.; the ideal is really to not speculate on motives at all, and judge editors entirely on the merits or demerits of their observable actions, but while engaged in removing permissions based on observable behavior, the only practical way to avoid assuming bad intentions is to keep asking yourself how these observable behaviors might possibly have good intentions behind them, though without deeming the actions any less unacceptable for that. --Pi zero (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent additions as well, the fleshing out of the article and clarification of where AGI should and shouldn't be used were needed. I'm thinking of proposing this as a guideline instead of just being a {{wikinews essay}} soon; what else do you think should be mentioned? You've really provided a fresh look into this problem, and I value your opinion. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still dissatisfied with the paragraph on not mentioning motives when blocking, but that line of thought isn't going to lead to further expansion of the article. Otherwise, I may have simply exhausted my little supply of ideas that I've been slowly gathering together ever since I came here (actually, longer than that — ever since I first discovered WP:ZEN). I will certainly think on it, though, and perhaps something more will occur to me after all. --Pi zero (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

## Matthiasb's de-editor

Hi Pi zero, maybe you could inform Matthias of the current request at WN:FRRFP so he could have a chance to respond? Thanks, Tempodivalse [talk] 16:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm afraid I'm doing way too many things at once this morning (in the real world as well as on-wiki). And Microchip beat me to it. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

## New article

sorry for my ignorance, ignorantia non est argumentum, though. i created a new article:

--Polysynaptic (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

## Concerning my de-publishing

Sorry that I can't give you any information concerning the question you asked about Google News. However I think most important in such a case is to put articles like the article in question back from published to draft status so that it isn't an official published article anymore. Whether the article (and how) it is shown on Google News itself plays the second violine.

Looking up the policy on reviewing you find the regulations under which conditions articles can be published. There is no mention of what to do if an articles erroneous was published not meeting all the criteria stated. I also didn't find any other hints what to do.

Okay, maybe I'm not as familiar with the usances in the EN Wikinews but and that's the thing any editor seeing a similar case should easily find what to do with it.

I guess you know where and whom to adress this issue so create at least some guidance for cases like this.

BTW, I am glad that you clarified your statement, which at least could be understood wrongly and that not only by someone who is not a first language speaker of the English language.

Have a nice day. --Matthiasb (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Matthias raises a good point. This has long been consensus, but I don't think we've ever written it down. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

## re International Committee of the Red Cross condemns Gaza blockade

Odd, perhaps check with User:Bawolff ? -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

/me wonders what this is about. Bawolff 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The test edit was me checking whether globally editing a file to modify one section causes an edit conflict with locally editing another section. It doesn't. --Pi zero (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
yeah, edit conflicts are handled in the code after the sections are merged back together. When it comes to edit conflict, a section edit is equivalent to a full page edit where you only changed stuff in one section. Bawolff 06:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Hello

Hello, I havn't been here that long (since June 19, 2010), but I have created two articles that have been published. How do you think I would do if I nominate myself for reviewer rights. Tempodivalse and I have been discussing about this subject, and he/she is saying if I create four to five I probably will be able to receive the right. I'm wanting more opinions though. --Nascar1996 15:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're started down the road, but you're not there yet. Watch what others do to your articles in getting them ready for publication; all that is what you're supposed to be able to do for other people's articles before you're granted the reviewer bit. Ideally, anyway. The usual route to the reviewer bit is that you demonstrate that you're ready by writing articles that others find they don't have to do much to before publishing them, and what they do find to do is just picking up a few things that you overlooked (which can happen to anyone), rather than catching any serious gaps in your skill set. My impression is that you need to better familiarize yourself with the style guide, and brush up on your formal English skills.
(No, that isn't the only possible route to the reviewer bit, or at least it wasn't always... but my own unconventional route to the bit took something like a year.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

## Quiz

Thanks for the comment on the quiz, this is my first time setting it. I will keep your suggestion in mind for the future. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

## ArbCom

I have nominated you to serve on ArbCom. Please see Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2010 election and clearly accept or decline to stand. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I'd like to ask you to seek adminship as well. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Shoot, I thought you were already an admin. I hope you wouldn't mind me nominating you. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to to commend you for your efforts in standing for the ArbCom. It's pretty clear to me the election has been made unnecessarily competitive, and far too many questions being posed (especially by candidates) which are not relevant to the position but only to the politics of a given candidate. Be aware that your considered responses are being read and appreciated, if that will encourage you. I don't recall any previous election being so energy-sapping, and usually the position is filled without a single effort on the holder's half. Hopefully this is an aberration. - 17:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I really do appreciate the moral support. --Pi zero (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

## Myself

Since you voted oppose on me,, I have created since edited and created. Are you still against me or nuetral. I am hoping you would support. Thanks anyway. --Nascar1996 03:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured I'd hear from you, as I'd noticed you were asking around and that Diego had decided he was satisfied. I'm in the midst of looking over your recent articles, to see for myself. --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay--Nascar1996 03:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. You will not regret this. :-) --Nascar1996 04:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, isn't this spam? --Nascar1996 03:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I think so. I've included it in a question at the water cooler. --Pi zero (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

## Old policy restored

I put the old policy in your userspace, at User:Pi zero/old userbox policy, ref the interest you mentioned. --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Pi zero (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pi Zero, I've made you an admin per your successful request for sysop. Don't hesitate to ask me or another admin if you have questions. I'm sure you'll do well. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. (I wonder what this button does...) --Pi zero (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

## email?

I have a confirmation e-mail (copy of the e-mail I sent you) from the Mediawiki software. - 00:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite understandable. You should be aware that, even now, I have no idea what your e-mail address is. Mediawiki software does not forward any information about you to me, just my information to you. - 00:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

## election certificate

${\displaystyle {\color {Blue}{\mathfrak {Wikinews}}}:{\color {Sepia}The\;Free\;News\;Source}}$

Election Certificate

The election committee for the 2010 Arbitration Committee election certifies that this user was elected to be an Arbitrator until July 31, 2011.

Benny the mascot (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

## Brian's RFP

Your numbers are off. I count 10 (including Ohana) in support, 6 in opposition. May not change the outcome, but you probably should update the number on the close/archive notice. Swatjester (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We normally allow those to run for two weeks by the way, in the past Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, the support percentage was just 62,5 from the total, and it is needed at least a 75%. It was not going to pass anyway, so why to care. Diego Grez return fire 21:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Two weeks? Sigh. Live and learn. As Diego notes, it wasn't going to pass. It had been going nowhere for days, with great wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Regarding my numbers: There were two votes from clear non-locals, which I considered mentioning as an aside at closure, but decided not to on the grounds that the notice was already complicated enough to be getting on with. Those two were split: Swatjester and MZMcBride. There was OhanaUnited's vote that I listed separately. The 8–8 votes were
Support: Tempodivalse, C628, the wub, Benny the mascot, Fetchcomms, Blurpeace, Adambro, Cspurrier.
Oppose: ShakataGaNai, Deigo Grez, Alexandr Dmitri, Amgine, InfantGorilla, DragonFire1024, Thunderhead, Pi zero.
--Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
<nods> My accounting was 10:8, because I tend to be more open in the definition of community. - 02:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As a "non-local", I don't think my vote counts any less. I find it a little offensive, by the way, the "non-local" point. I'm just as affected by this as any other user here, perhaps even more so because the issues raised in this particular RFP affect my work as a Communications Committee member; and I'm one of the people responsible for dealing with any negative fallout aimed at the foundation from Wikinews articles. Just because I don't regularly edit here, doesn't mean that I'm not part of the community. Per Wikinews policy, All participants are equal. If you are a good faith participant to Wikinews, your opinion counts as much as others. It seems abjectly wrong and against the project's policies to discredit those votes, especially in the apparent absence of anything to the contrary. Like I said, even with the votes, it doesn't really change the outcome, but getting the right numbers on there has importance to me. Swatjester (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• You have some serious nerve there Dan. I quote, "I'm one of the people responsible for dealing with any negative fallout aimed at the foundation from Wikinews articles". What, exactly, do you think I am trying to do here? A very large part of it happens to be avoiding things ending up on your doorstep. Or, are you now implying that the WMF will help defend the contributor(s) and reviewer(s) who publish utter falsehoods or copyright violations. That was never the impression I was given; consequently, I have worked very hard to stop things coming to that. In light of that, the numbers are just trivial accounting. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 05:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)People who have no main space edits are generally not considered participants. Bawolff 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

## Flood flag

Could you please give me "Flood" flag momentarily? I'm sorting out the requests for permissions. Thank you. Diego Grez return fire 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You're a pseudo-bot. --Pi zero (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, will let you know whenever I'm done. Diego Grez return fire 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Errr, funny to find this here. You should use flood as-opposed to bot. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 01:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
flood got renamed to pseudo-bot (it was bot users at one point to). Bawolff 01:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

## The main page

Hello, you may consider marking the page reviewed. Only admins can do it. Right now the page looks like an IP edited it without anyone reviewing it. 02:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll hazard a guess —because I've had WTF moments myself over this— that if you saw a "review pending changes" message on the main page, it was actually a "templates/images may need review", or whatever the exact wording of that is. That happens fairly often to the main page, because one or more of the lead templates has a pending edit (Template:Lead article 1, etc.). Those are only semi-protected. --Pi zero (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

## Category:Category

Hello, Pi Zero. I was wondering why you'd removed the parser function when it would greatly help by removing the Category:Internal Wikinews organization from the top Category:Category, which had explicitly stated that the top category alone "should be the only uncategorized category." It's very confusing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the statement in Category:Category that it should be the only uncategorized category: That statement was added in September 2007, and never got changed after Category:Internal Wikinews organization was added in December 2007. It's not uncommon, on Wikinews, to come across the odd very-out-of-date statement in the internal documentation; that happens occasionally even on Wikipedia, with its vastly larger labor pool, but here we not only have fewer contributors, but those we do have mostly pour their contribution time into the endless task of turning out quality news stories on a deadline.
Regarding Category:Internal Wikinews organization: Key to understanding the why of Wikinews categories is understanding DPLs, which are used to select sets of pages via database-ish queries. In this case, it appears that Category:Internal Wikinews organization is meant to allow queries to exclude a certain kind of category; and both Category:Internal Wikinews organization and Category:Category are amongst the categories meant to be excluded. Therefore, both of them belong to Category:Internal Wikinews organization. I presume that the reason for excluding that category from Category:Category is to avoid introducing a nontrivial loop of subcategories. --Pi zero (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

## You're hired!

As a qualified Wikinewsie => Wikipedian translator. :p

Of course linking 'without merit' to wikt:meritocracy seems to have been a lost nuance.

Please tell me the entire enWP MoS team aren't going to drop in, if this starts taking more contributor time I'd feel fully justified in blocking 'em all for disruption. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

## Re: Drogba Article

Thanks. Sorry about that. red-thunder. 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

## Mispublished

Yep. Hadn't thought about that, although with Category:No publish it should no longer show up in that list (DPL error there as well). I will add No publish to future shorts aggregates - and to the preload template if I build that. Do you know if <noinclude>{{Publish}}</noinclude> would avoid including the publish template in transclusions? That might avoid the issue in the future. - 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm so glad you mentioned that... there's a bit I talked with Bawolff about as an extension to DPL, to allow DPL to manage transclusion of found articles. Maybe I'll start a bugzilla bug...
The idea would be: if an article meets the DPL requirements, then and only then would its text be included in the shorts article (with a wikitax prefix or suffix, allowing == {{PAGENAME}} == or something similar). This would let us require the article be published, a short, in the current date category, and only the correctly flagged revision would be displayed. - 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not the category No publish includes hink, it will never be published. So, by default it probably should *not* be in category mispublished. I guess the question is "what is the mispublished list about?" - I'm not really sure I know. - 17:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I see what you're referring to. I added the Category:Brief, as that was the old way we did shorts. Clearly this is something which we had a tradition regarding in the past. - 22:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews Shorts: September 2, 2010 Thank you so much for your improvements. - 03:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

## Fuel tanker aground in Northwest Passage

Do you think this should be given a {{dateline|September 3, 2010}}, or perhaps renamed to "Wikinews Shorts: September 3, 2010/Fuel tanker aground in Northwest Passage"? --Pi zero (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I would say the latter, although I'm not caught up on what has been happening on-wiki since yesterday. - 19:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

## Pope Benedict

Pope Benedict XVI is starting his UK tour today. I would like to create a category in relation to articles about this tour but I do not know what to call it. Can you please help me come up with a name for the category? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the names of categories about specific events conventionally start with the year. Perhaps either
`Category:2010 Papal tour of UK`
or
`Category:2010 Papal UK tour`
? --Pi zero (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's very good, I think. I had no idea you had a major presence in this field.

But while the checklist has specific uses, we do need the fuller style guide to be as succinct as possible, I'd have thought. The full version offers clear opportunities for trimming without removing anything useful. The paragraphs I've already focused on at the talk page do remove information, in a few cases whole sentences, but I do not believe they are useful. But I'm interested to hear opinions on that.

Please note that I have no experience or knowledge of whatever traumas have occurred surrounding the style guide; nor do I want to know, since it seems irrelevant to the task at hand. I am surprised to encounter such entrenched resistance to change, when what I am proposing is mere house-cleaning—a far cry from proposing substantive changes to the guidelines, which is not my intention during this process. Tony1 (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And yes, the checklist is specific in its uses. I don't know first hand, myself, about whatever traumas surrounded the style guide, as they would have been before my time here — and from my sense of the pulse of this place, I'd be afraid to guess. The Style Guide is more than WP:MOS, less than a holy book, and (one suspects) very like a third rail. When grappling with it, wear heavily insulated gloves (and boots!).
Besides the whole Wikipedian thing, there's probably another reason why tinkering with the Style Guide may be resented. Wikinewsies tend to spend as much of their project time as they can on writing articles (to a never-ending stream of deadlines), and they have limited patience for working on the project infrastructure. They'll do it when they see a real need (which is not uncommon), but even much of that is conducted in slow motion, and when a big distracting discussion finally winds down, one of the last comments as it ends is often something like "Now can we get back to writing articles?" They're apt to resent being pulled away from the news for infrastructure work that isn't vitally needed. Further, the community has trouble dealing with a lot of different infrastructural issues at once, and adding the Style Guide as one more is liable to starve some other, perhaps more immediately vital, issue. All of which may figure in Amgine's repeated query of what vital need there is to make changes to the Style Guide. You're not, let's face it, going to be turned loose on the Style Guide, and to vet your suggestions is going to pull others away from other things. The effect is heightened by the fact that, evidently, you aren't helping with those other things that people get pulled away from. Note that I have a long list of infrastructure issues on my user page — and most of them just sit and wait, because they can't be usefully brought up at once.
It seems that many of your difficulties with this are caused by trying to work on the Style Guide without contributing in mainspace. I don't imagine you have time to contribute to Wikinews mainspace; but that is one of the two ways to logically eliminate the cause. --Pi zero (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

## Blasting the review backlog

<laughing> Yes you did! you reviewed pretty much everything in the backlog single-handedly! - 16:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

## Uttar Pradesh in News by Country

Hi there,

I saw you reverted my edit which was proberly the right thing to do. I was just wondering is their anyway to get rid on Uttar Pradesh in the News by Country category without losing the infomation. I mean London and the U.S states have their own category's with out being in the "wrong" one. It's just Uttar Pradesh does not belong in the News by Country section.

Many thanks, Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking of creating a template that can be used for any geocat smaller than a country. --Pi zero (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
That would be good. (I made cats for Australian states and territories by substituting from the country template.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I see you created it now. {{Areacategory}} looks great! --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

## Magnitude 5.4 earthquake hits Crete, Greece

Can you look at this article please? The issue on the talk page is addressed, but it needs a title improvement before I can review. Any ideas? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanx. That article's rapidly developing into a pain... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
And again. --Pi zero (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

## re: double headed eagle thing.

Sorry Pi Zero, I read it through, it looked newsworthy based on what it was saying, I did what I'm supposed to do and published it after checking it over. If I'd noticed it was advert style I wouldn't have touched it. BarkingFish (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

## ISS article

Sorry about the source, the NASA site updated the article, but apparently the previous content is gone. However, I managed to find it on another site.Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 00:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

## Verifiability

Good comments about the magicians swap meet article.....I probably won't submit for re-review....but thanks anyway....honestly. Y'know.....I get a'lot of responses re: who should I write for? Some people say, "More than the residents of a neighborhood." You say, "More than a few hundred." OK.....that's cool........hmmmmmm, I think there're about 427 people in the world who would find this meaningful from a human-interest standpoint. Is that enough people? How about 420? What about 417? Buddpaul (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Relevance isn't purely about head count. We have had some interesting discussions at the water cooler about the nature of newsworthiness as it applies to local news. ...I've just dug up the ones I was remembering, in the archives from November and December of last year: November#Newsworthiness - how to define it?, December#Local news articles. --Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll read those....thank you.Buddpaul (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
....and some mighty fine discussions those were......but I didn't really see that a conclusion or "punch line" was ultimately reached. .....the whole topic is fodder for interesting discussion, but I think a concrete conclusion needs to be reached. Forgive me, I need certainty.Buddpaul (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

## Pleonasm

I appreciate what you're trying to do on WC/policy, but can I initially ask a couple of things be done. First, break the very substantial, rambling - as you say, sections into subsections. Then, in not more than three short sentences, define each of the corrective/coercive/preventative terms you want used in any discussion.

I'm particularly annoyed at myself over the spat with Tempodivalse that escalated utterly out of control; if I read your comments correctly, you've clearly indentified the need for a different mindset on enWN.

Off-wiki extreme frustration was expressed to me about dancing around Greg and Tony, I'd say tying up 10% of the project's contributor base was indisputably disruption. I stand by the blocks I issued at that time; they were in the project's best interests - not mine, as witnessed by follow-up trolling and calls for my head on a platter.

P.S. When's someone going to implement the "It is x days since brianmc swore on-wiki" bot? ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 21:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

## Category query

What is up with this? [1] Please explain? Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

{{latestcat}} doesn't provide a good set of sister links (it uses {{Sisterlinks}}, which itself only links to Commons), so I moved the other sister link boxes up by moving the list down, using the admittedly inelegant means of explicitly coding the DPL. Most categories put {{wikipedia}} before {{commons}}, or so it's seemed to me; and the Commons link provided by {{latestcat}} is phrased as the sole sister link, which looks odd when juxtaposed with other sister links. I don't know of any other means than what I did to get everything formatted the way it is now. (Suggestions? Downside to the way it's now arranged?)
What I imagine is really needed, in the intermediate-to-long term, is a general template for lesser-topic categories, akin to {{Areacategory}} that's general for geocats smaller than a country. Though what's most needed, in the nearer term, is to get the portals straightened out so they stop encroaching on and messing up the categories. --Pi zero (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please instead request those changes be made to the templates, instead of doing a manual-work-around? -- Cirt (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me (but I may only need the right clue to get my bearings). Request which changes to which templates? --Pi zero (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

## Please engage in discussion, at Template talk:Latestcat

I have started a subsection for discussion, at Template talk:Latestcat. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

## Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for going over my article - I will get better at this as time goes on :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Om2728 (talkcontribs) 17:59, 20 October 2010

## Cholera spreads to Port-au-Prince, five cases reported

Hi, I was wondering if the article is any better now? Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 19:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the fundamental problem remains: until near the end of the second paragraph, it's a sentence-by-sentence paraphrase. Presenting the same ideas in the same order is a real problem; instead of looking at the sources to get ideas for how to order things in your article, you should be looking at them to know what orderings to avoid imitating. One wants to find a logically compelling arrangement that's not too close to any one source. --Pi zero (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I just made another revision and there are now four to be reviewed, so it should be a bit better now. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 20:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

## Mispublished

Thanks for sighting that. I'm not sure why this keeps happening—do you know? Regards, Wackywacedictaphone 12:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't. I had a couple of thoughts on how to treat the symptom, though. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

## Comment

Moved this from your userpage: --Diego Grez return fire 21:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

hi how do you make a cite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.212.3.201 (talkcontribs)

Each Wikinews article has a "Sources" section, down toward the bottom. Everything that the article says has to be from the sources, which must be reputable. (That includes original reporting, which is backed up by detailed reporter's notes from a trusted Wikinewsie — advanced stuff, not applicable to this case.) Keep in mind that a Wikinews article is a snapshot of what was known about the news event at the time; new information can only be added within 24 hours after publication. --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

## Bomber injures 32 in the city of Istanbul

Sorry about that. I had been reprimanded in the past for having too many sources in my articles, so I tried to cut down on them this time around. I'll add them now. Bkissin (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

## Shall we try again?

Hello, I adjusted on the article, adding two sources for the standings and the teams, and I also linked both types of the standings. The race part should be in the Lap-by-Lap summary. 20:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets say he won the championship by 4 points and he won the race, which gave him 25 points, could the audience assume that you subtract it from the total of 256? 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not involved with Vettel becomes youngest Formula One champion. --Pi zero (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I only added these links because they were requested on the collaboration page. It also seemed as if it was causing a bit of confusion about the points. SputniK 79 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Replied at article talk. --Pi zero (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• May have been looking for me. I rewrote the article, but didn't add any facts or even open the sources. I just fixed up what was already there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• My mistake. Sorry about that. 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

## Reviews

Hah, yeah, I wondered too. Now we know:). I was just reviewing the mine article while waiting for Diego to get back to me about a translation problem in an article I was reviewing for him. BTW, did EzPR sight the article this time? It failed to sight Diego's watertreatment article just now. Gopher65talk 03:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhhhh, I'm dumb. You didn't pass the article, so of course no sight. Any other errors? Gopher65talk 03:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

## Broken record-player

Not at all, I hear people saying it all the time! Thanks for sighting it :-) wackywace 18:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

## re: Jawbone found in Aruba is not Natalee Holloway's

{{replied|User talk:SVTCobra#Jawbone found in Aruba is not Natalee Holloway's}}

## Sighting

Thanks again. Not sure why it keeps not sighting... wackywace 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

## replacing image

Hi Pi zero. I've moved some of my files on Commons. One of the renamed files is "File:Schattenkreuzröhre-in use-lateral view-standing cross.jpg". Stanford physicists print smallest-ever letters 'SU' at subatomic level of 1.5 nanometres tall uses this file, but it is protected so that neither CommonsDelinker nor I can chage the usage. Please be so kind and change the usage for me. The new filename is "File:Crookes tube-in use-lateral view-standing cross prPNr°11.jpg". Thanks --D-Kuru (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

## Wikinews reporters' workshops

Absolutely no idea if you follow the WikimediaUK mailing list but, I've just gone fishing there for help running a series of Wikinews reporters' workshops in one of Edinburgh's libraries.

Thoughts?

We desperately need to boost the contributor base, I think the only real way to do so is via boots on the ground. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Please block AmyRosePwnsU (talk · contribs) for vandalising two articles, saying "JIMBO WALES NEEDS MONEY, FEED HIM", and changed the entire landscape of the wiki. 03:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What a moron. --Pi zero (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
You better believe it. :) 04:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

## Merry Christmas!

23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

## Regarding the Alexander Lukashenko story

This is what happens when you get people who should be reviewing work, holding you to ransom offwiki to get the review queue cleared. I won't go into details here, since I'm not supposed to mix IRC and Wiki, according to the guidelines. I guess I missed the copyvio and just bummed through them to get them out of the flaming way. BarkingFish (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As per your post on my talk, I have named names in the required place, and posted the log of the conversation which lead to me pushing through the queue. I have also per that thread, applied for immediate removal of my reviewers rights on this wiki. What I did was inexcusible, I know that. But the ball is now in the community's court as to what happens to me. BarkingFish (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

## Serious influenza cases double in England in three days

Um, you failed the article, but there's no review template on the talk page, so I don't know what to fix? Regards, wackywace 10:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)