User talk:SVTCobra

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
Golden file cabinet.png

{{Under review}}[edit]

That template was created for a reason. It is not optional.
•–• 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I remember for years we rarely if ever used it, even though it had been created (I see) back in 2008. I'm not sure how we ever got along without it, though; it sure does help keep things orderly. --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I would not be surprised. I remember another Wikinewsie "passing" an article without making use of that template. But we have good memories of what happens with or without that template. (Was the same day I found out there is a country called Curacao)
•–• 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am quite sure the template is optional. I know it is helpful in avoiding edit-conflicts, but I didn't use it because I didn't know if I had time for a full review or just some minor tidy work. The article was idle for nearly 5 hours. But as soon as I went to use the review tool, a bunch of my changes got reverted. Therefore, revision 4373650 was reviewed, but that is not the current revision, so I could not publish. --SVTCobra 14:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it came from project guidelines or essays [frankly that is annoying] but the stages of an article are: {{develop}}ing, {{under review}}, and {{publish}}ed.
•–• 15:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Actually, under-review is an extra, in addition to being on the review queue. I can understand SVTCobra's choice not to use it under the circumstances, though of course not using it does mean there's some chance of... well, some chance of exactly what happened.

I have in mind that when we build an assistant to replace the current review gadget, it would add {{under review}} when the reviewer starts to set up the review template, if there weren't already such a tag on the article. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, is "under review" not one of the stages of a [successful] news article?
•–• 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles have to be reviewed, of course, but the tag is optional and thereby the "stage". You can also say that {{prepared story}} is a stage in article development, but it too is optional. --SVTCobra 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is the thing: it is totally okay if an article is not a prepared story. But without review, no article can be published.
•–• 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
True. But there's no requirement that "Under review" needs to be affixed to the article while the review takes place, as long as the article is actually reviewed. {{develop}} is not even a requirement. Somebody could write the entire article in one edit (if they want to risk losing their work) and go straight to the {{review}} stage. That is the only required stage because it has to be performed by a different person. --SVTCobra 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have written articles in one edit. Until and unless I am 100% sure the article is ready for review, I do not remove {{develop}} tag. The content is not on the server-side, but the article is under development. It may never appear it used {{develop}}, but it is not possible for an article not to be developing at a certain stage. How about we stop justifying why that template is important, and actually use it to avoid problems just like what you just witnessed?
•–• 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's how you do it, but you could have put "review" if you were truly confident in your work and carefully examined the preview. There's no right or wrong way. People can develop articles in their sandbox, if they wish. --SVTCobra 15:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Still it is "developing". It is a formal stage. Just like an article needs a formal review to be published.
•–• 15:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. This is getting completely pointless. --SVTCobra 15:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. If you still can't see a point here, maybe you did not get anything that I was trying to tell you.
•–• 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The point was you accused me of a policy violation, which I think I have demonstrated, it is not. I am fully aware, some edit-conflicts may have been avoided if I had used the "under review" template. But only maybe, it wouldn't actually have stopped you from reverting some of my changes; I can only hope you'd respect the tag, but there wouldn't be any guarantee. Is there some other point you are trying to make?--SVTCobra 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Since we are all on the same team, and I really think there is no great animosity on any side of this, perhaps we should simply let the matter drop, having exchanged our various thoughts on the matter. --Pi zero (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I wouldn’t call it reverting. I actually thought you were copyediting. In that case, you have changed the punctuation mark, placed it in the quotation mark. Would it have stopped me? As a reviewer, I had experienced what happens when someone edits while we are reviewing the article. That was one of the first things I got to know when I joined the project.
117.248.121.206 (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Great to see you around[edit]

Have I remarked on how grateful I am for help with reviewing? I try my best when it's just me, but a bit of help from a couple of other reviewers (as has been the case in recent days) makes a terrific difference. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you have, but thanks. I am glad to do it when I have some down-time. And thank you for all the work you have done over the years. Do you have time to review Mysterious dimming of Tabby's star likely due to space dust, not alien superstructures, say scientists? It seems to be our biggest and most time piece on the docket. If yes, I'll do some work on England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed. BTW, I added a couple of things to WN:DR. They are borderline speedy, so if you believe they indeed are speedy items, feel free to wipe them. Cheers and happy editing, --SVTCobra 17:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have had in mind to tackle the astronomy article today. I've a bit to do irl, and then hopefully I can get to it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I hope the stupid drama isn't preventing you from reviewing Mysterious dimming of Tabby's star likely due to space dust, not alien superstructures, say scientists. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

self sight[edit]

Stop self sighting your edits. You can not sight the edit adding photos. That is clearly a policy breach.
•–• 09:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you please start citing the policies I am breaching! Show me this policy! You didn't seem to mind when I was auto-sighting and populating your new Australian Open category. I am sick and tired of this non-specific "you are breaching policy" accusation without saying what policy is being breached. You are wasting my time and, frankly, turning me off from this project. --SVTCobra 09:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
From Wikinews:Reviewing articles (official policy on the English Wikinews)

"any Reviewer who performs an edit that would not have been permissable to an article that had been archived under WN:ARCHIVE must not sight that revision, and await sighting from another Reviewer."
•–• 09:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, and if you dig into this double-convoluted policy it does say in the archive policy that "adding images is content" (WN:ARCHIVE), but you have to go two layers deep in policy; and I don't think it was intended for articles that were published only 3 hours earlier. So, tell me: Why did you remove the image instead of un-sighting and re-sighting?
If your goal is to have me not ever review an article that you started, believe me, you have succeeded! Do you hate me so much because I changed "Aus" to "Australian"? If so, that is both pathetic and petty. --SVTCobra 10:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
A) I cannot unsight And resight a revision which isn’t the current revision. B) it is pathetic and petty for you to think I hate you for changing a word in the headline. I don’t hate you for that. I just voiced my thoughts. And seems to me that you didn’t like the way I told you. We don’t have AGF policy, and I can criticise you for your edits if they are good for the project. Point me the comments which were destructive for the project.
•–• 10:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
you spent time for the various layers, but on the top it is clearly mentioned “Any revisions to an article that would breach WN:ARCHIVE had that article been archived must be sighted by another user” — file change 24 hours after publishing the article is not permitted, let alone the case of archived article.
•–• 11:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Look, it's layers because the one policy lazily refers to another policy. You cannot see the part about images being content without going into WN:Archive. --SVTCobra 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
A) It's not that hard. Just unsight the revision and all the subsequent, then resight them. You are doing the same by removing the image and sighting that edit when the image was added many revisions ago. There's no difference. B) Well, your thoughts are not appreciated. I know there's not an AGF policy. Here we call it Never Assume. In it, it says to be skeptical. I have become very skeptical of you. I question your motives. I question why you have wasted hours upon hours of my time on nonsensical bullshit. I think the majority of Wikinews will say that my edits are good for the project. I cannot say the same for you. Wasting my time, wasting Pi zero's time is destructive for the project! What about that don't you get??? --SVTCobra 11:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Wasting your time? You are not compelled to reply. And it is destructive for the project? Where were you for the last two and half years ago? I haven’t said your edits were destructive, but you do not acknowledge my edits were not destructive. You have been away for Wikinews for long enough that you fail to see how irrational things have been, and your comments too. Luckily Pi zero was there to help me. It would have been better if you understood a revert or a comment was not against your on-wiki reputation, but a precaution, when I told you what to do certain things.
•–• 11:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You are right, I am not compelled to answer; and I shan't do it again after this. It is none of your business where I have been IRL. Surely, I played into the wasting of time by replying to you, but I did not know how out-of-control it would get when it began. My so-called "on-wiki" reputation speaks for itself; frankly, I don't care about it; it does not define me. In my opinion, your objections to what I have done are unfounded and you are digging around in policy to try to prove otherwise. I am guessing, if Pi zero made the same edits as I did, you would not object.
What makes you think you have the authority to tell me "to do certain things"? Your sense of self-entitlement is astonishing. Please spare me your "precautions". I will do my utmost to not interact with you in the future, lest you start reverting things out of shear vanity again. The good news is you can rest assured, you are by no means the most cancerous person to have landed at Wikinews. Bye, --SVTCobra 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Snow[edit]

Just fyi. I'm very frustrated that I haven't gotten to the astronomy article yet (except for looking briefly at at as I was about to turn in last night, when I was very far from being able to review), but still hope to get to it today... but just atm I need to clear somewhere likely between one and two metric tons of snow from our driveway. Hopefully that will only take three hours or so.

(I'm admittedly very upset that you and acagastya are not getting along at all well. And things seem to be getting worse hour by hour, despite or in some cases perhaps because of my efforts to be helpful to all. It's quite depressing, given that my future hopes for Wikinews seemingly require being able to have lots of reviewers here all at the same time and have them all pulling in the same direction.)

Btw, as a matter of possible side interest, the "assume good intentions" page ultimately didn't work out well, causing considerable problems, and evolved to Wikinews:Never assume. Which I think is what we always really meant, anyway. (I recall remarking to brianmc, after the overhaul, that it all got immensely shorter because a lot of the words in "assume good intentions" were trying to pull back from having ever said to assume anything in the first place; as I recall, he chuckled.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Do not blame yourself. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
(Better ballpark estimate, six to ten tons.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed[edit]

Just wondering; it was pointed out (in a rather nasty tone, but I think someone may have been genuinely hurt to be called... a name which I hesitate to repeat, which I eventually had to look up as I'd never seen it before) that the focal event on this article was on Sunday, and we published on Thursday. Your thoughts regarding freshness on this one? (The WN:Freshness link, btw, is an essay on newsworthiness that BRS, and to some extent I, wrote after some years of deliberating and occasional community discussions.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page of the article, you will see that I commented to Gryllida that it was not super-timely. And it, in fact, only just meets Wikinews criteria for timeliness. Let me quote from WN:Content guide, which is official policy: "If the event was in the last seven days but new information came to light in the last 2–3 days then the article is still acceptable."
Similarly, the essay that you cited states: "If the event was in the last seven days but new information came to light in the last 2–3 days then the article is still acceptable. In most cases however the new information will be suitable to refocus on, with a headline and lede identifying the new information as the event is being reported on."
So, the event occurred in the last seven days and latest source used was from January 2. I published on January 5, three days after. So it is certainly borderline, but it ticks all the boxes. In this case, it did not seem to make sense an refocus the story on the statements of the mayor or the other information used from the most recent source. Since writers are getting increasingly frustrated that they can't get their articles reviewed in a timely matter, I thought I would definitely err on the side of publishing, especially given how much effort had been put into it with custom maps and all. It would be a shame to see it all get flushed down the tube for being a hair stale.
The user who raised the issue is grasping at straws in their vendetta against me. The user feels ownership over articles and that their choices must be respected. I think it began with changing "Aus" to "Australian" in the title, which was done according to official policy (see WN:Naming conventions), and the moving of a period, which I believe I did grammatically correct, but it such a minor thing I didn't care about that. The user refused to concede that I was in my right to change it and began an unrelenting campaign of harassment starting various discussions on no fewer than four talk pages. I believe this was done in violation of WN:POINT, if not by the letter of that policy, then certainly the spirit.
This questioning of the timeliness of the car park article is, in my opinion, just an example of lashing out like a petulant child (or that word I used before).
Speaking of timeliness, I hope the astronomy article doesn't fall victim to that. Some people put an awful lot of effort into it. The sources are from January 3. If it does, we know who we can blame for wasting our time. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm eyeing the clock nervously, about the astronomy article. My own morale has been admittedly quite low the past day and more, over this awful falling out between you and acagastya, and that has not at all helped with my getting myself psyched into review mode; but I really must do so, no later than right after lunch today.

I've earnestly tried but had not managed to catch every point that has been discussed. We're in agreement that it's marginal in freshness; I quite accept your judgement that there was something-or-other in the most recent source that had come to light on the day of the latest source; usually of course one wants to have some explicit mention in the article of the most-recent date that is supporting freshness (a point I've tended to emphasize because sooner-or-later someone wants to submit something a week later based on the publication date of some tardily published source that really didn't offer anything new). I do think acagastya is genuinely concerned for the project; xe learned reviewing from me, and I am known to be, amongst other things, a perfectionist, and while I have much experience on the project working alongside other reviewers with different styles than my own, acagastya has rarely worked alongside any other reviewer than me. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it again, the publishing occurred on January 4, not 5, a few hours before it UTC time clicked over to the fifth, so then it is even less marginal and all the sources were within 3 days.
PS Do we really protect redirects that are from before publishing? We used to delete them and only keep and protect redirects in the more rare case of an article being renamed after publishing so that links on outside aggregators or mirrors don't break. --SVTCobra 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
A bit of middling-recent history on redirects (though as I write it all out, there turns out to be rather more to it than I'd realized).

Some... discussion arose, a while back, between brianmc and Amgine about when a redirect from renaming an article can be speedily deleted, as a result of which BRS and I (don't recall who else may have been involved) thrashed out a speedy-deletion clause to clarify. My somewhat-understanding of Amgine's concern was that deleting a redirect is relatively expensive in server load because of some point about how the wiki platform is designed. The rule we've been operating on since then is that a redirect from renaming an article can be (but doesn't have to be) speedily deleted if the rename was done prior to publication and publication has since taken place and the publication took place no earlier than the beginning of 2009 (because BRS figured the current review/publication pattern wasn't as stable earlier than that). I observe that folks don't always bother about whether the article has been published yet. Acagastya usually prefers to ask an admin to move the unpublished article without leaving a redirect. Amgine's concern, if I understood it, still applies, though, so I usually don't delete pre-publish redirects even after publication, though I keep in mind that they can be deleted at whim. However, redirects in mainspace are actually a mild security liability (not a crisis, but best eliminated in the long run), so I've started dealing with them, one at a time, with always in mind that eventually, once semi-automated assistants become easy to come by, the dealing-with may speed up quite a lot. Once the target article is published, I fully protect each redirect, and check carefully to see whether the creating rename was before or after publication; if before, I categorize it in both Category:Protected mainspace redirects and Category:Discretionary mainspace redirects; if after, then just Category:Protected mainspace redirects and I might add an explanation in the edit summary. When I started working on that, I counted the mainspace redirects; at the time we had about 21 thousand articles in mainspace, and I was rather disconcerted to find there were about 18 thousand redirects in mainspace, rather more than I'd guessed. I've been working both backward from the present and forward from the start of the project (I also have a Category:Non-news mainspace redirects, btw); except for really recent stuff whose status hasn't been resolved yet, I've worked back to late 2010 (almost as far back as I've gotten with my other vast curation project, converting old articles to use {{w}}), and forward to mid-2005. --Pi zero (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot. But is it really of any importance to switch old links to use {{w}}? The old links work fine. But both that curation project and the redirect project seem like candidates for being handled with a bot. Or perhaps you find the grind of doing it manually therapeutic? Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It's a subtle and powerful template, really; I confess to a certain pride in having devised it. On the surface, it appears to be "just" a device that checks for a local target, links to that if found, and if not found, links instead to wikipedia. With a few refinements for less common situations. But the effect of having vast numbers of archived articles using that device is, that when we do create a new local category, populate it, and then create a local mainspace redirect to it, all the articles that look for that label instantly shift to use the local link, and they flag themselves out so we can, at our leisure, go through and find them, consider whether to categorize them (in case we missed them when populating the category initially) and convert them to hard local links thus decategorizing them. Also, there's a gadget that underlines local links via {{w}} in green, which makes it much easier to categorize a new article by looking to see which links in the article are local. It's dramatically changed our attitude toward creating new categories, which used to be a more painful task that we tried to minimize whereas we're now considerably more aggressive about it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Btw, regarding use of a bot: I'm not a believer in bots. They're not flexible. I want human judgement involved in the decisions, because there are lots of details of these operations that are better handled by human judgement. I do want semi-automation, to reduce the tedium without reducing the richness of human input; but I reckon it's also needful to have a human operator who is intimately familiar with an operation in order to design semi-automation for it, so that's another reason to have a human continuously doing some of it (without worrying about the fact that the task is huge and going very slowly atm). --Pi zero (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Trump 2016 TIME POTY.jpg[edit]

I'm a bit puzzled, on this. You tagged it as needing a fair-use rationale. Such things certainly want to be well taken care of. I feel, honestly, I'm missing something about the situation. The page and creation edit-summary state the purpose of the image; I make no claim either way about the adequacy thereof, but once one knows the purpose it seems likely that anything more wanted would be pro forma — and that leads in turn to my sense that I'm missing something about the situation. What more is it you deem needed? --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you did something more on this while I was writing the above. I admit I'm still not altogether following. --Pi zero (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I plan on filling in a more complete fair use rationale. I have gained a decent amount of experience with this over on Wikipedia. Copyright is one of the things that we can get busted for quite hard. It is better do it proper. The image was also of far too high resolution. It needs not be any bigger than the size it appears in thumb, tbh. --SVTCobra 14:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not looking to have the image removed or otherwise breaking an archived article, if that is your concern. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Cool. (Yes, I know copyright is a big thing. I put a lot of time and effort into copyright/plagiary issues in article text, which is of course also a very big thing for a news site, but consider myself of pretty limited knowledge on image copyright.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I further reduced the size of the image we have locally. 240 x 320 (with some slight variation because not all magazines are 2:3 ratio) is the size Wikipedia uses for covers of newspapers and magazines. (I have recently created articles for local newspapers on Wikipedia). I do not know how they concluded that is the maximum size for fair use without infringing on copyright, but I am sure they had years and many discussions about it. I feel comfortable if we adhere to the same. We may also want to consider creating {{Cover}} because {{Screenshot}} isn't really the same thing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Non-free use rationale}}[edit]

I've tried to add a nocat parameter to this. --Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But we do want it to add those categories if it lacks the information when on an image file, don't we? For example, if a backlink doesn't exist, then the image should be flagged in some way. --SVTCobra 16:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that is more important than the ability to show the template in full on Wikinews:Image copyright tags --SVTCobra 16:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I was concerned about whether I'd done it right; from your remark I deduced that I hadn't. Hopefully fixed now. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't sure it was possible (because I am darn near code-blind), that's why I emphasized the functionality of the template. I tested by breaking some parameters and looking at a preview of a file page, and indeed it does what it used to do without doing it to Wikinews:Image copyright tags. Many thanks, indeed. --SVTCobra 20:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Miketoral"[edit]

Does that username seem to you likely to be accidentally so close to "mikemoral"? We did have one or two cases modernly of user names deliberately close to "pi zero". --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about it. Is there any policy anywhere on Wikimedia projects about spoofing usernames to gain an air of authority? So far, the edits don't seem to be out-of-line with a first-time contributor.
Related topic: Earlier, I cleared the back-log of unblock requests. Why does you-know-who have at least three usernames, not to mention all the editing from various IP addresses? Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The relevant policy would be WN:U. Common sense also applies, of course. I'm actually a bit surprised the wiki software allowed them to register a user name that differs in only one internal letter from a nine-character existing one; I thought I remembered having some trouble, in the long ago, when I was registering an account (under my real name) and wasn't allowed several variations because they weren't different enough from existing accounts. The issues seem to me to be  (a) are the two so close to each other that we ought to be disallowing it due to possible confusion regardless of intent, and  (b) is there evidence of intent to deceive? --Pi zero (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any attempts to act as if the user is Mikemoral. With 2.8 million users registered, some of them are bound to be near the same. It also seems that Meta has allowed the username Miketoral., so it's available globally including Wikipedia where Mikemoral is an even bigger presence. I strongly suggest leaving it to Meta unless there's some bad behavior. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: It seems we have a real life BRS spoofer. I'm gonna let it go for a few minutes for my own amusement. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I take it you were sufficiently amused at just about the same moment I was. :p --Pi zero (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes! Face-smile.svg --SVTCobra 21:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Image search[edit]

I've heard folks mention google's image search, but, how does one invoke it?

(Spurious thought: it's long seemed a shame to me that when Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes, Hollywood was in a we-know-better-than-the-written-author phase; because, on physical appearance, after reading the first description of Holmes in A Study in Scarlet imho one could pick Rathbone out of a line-up.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sure there's a direct url to it, but I just do a random googles search for anything, like the letter A. Then I click on the "Images" tab to filter the results, and then a little camera icon appears in the search entry box. Click that camera and it will ask for the url of an image or you can enter a locally stored image. I told you, I'm not a technocrat, but I get by. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Phone number headline spam[edit]

Not a bit deal by any means, but lately when we have one of these spammers who put phone numbers in the names of pages, obviously to make the numbers visible even if one doesn't click on the link, after deleting we've hidden the page names so those phone numbers aren't even visible on RC or the deletion log. I think Amgine mentioned having submitted a request (on "phabricator", or whatever the gratuitous replacement for bugzilla is called) to modify the special:nuke interface to make it easy to hide the names at the same time; meanwhile, we've been doing it "by hand" by going into the deletion log. --Pi zero (talk)

Ah, I wondered why you changed the visibility on pages I deleted. I woke up in the middle of the night and refreshed RC. I could see by the titles they were spam, I didn't even open any of them to see what the "amazing" content could be. I mass deleted and blocked. Next time, I will open one or two first. Wait! What? In the titles? I am pretty sure there were no phone numbers in the titles. It was like printer model numbers, like "Epson 240 C" or something. Well, I guess I can look again at the logs. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see now. a "1-800" number was the common denominator in all the titles. Well, as I said, I woke up in the middle of the night, did the block/delete and went back to sleep. Sorry, I'll do better next time.--SVTCobra 14:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 :-) --Pi zero (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

TheRumbler[edit]

Why do you keep repeating the same bloody thing for? TheRumbler (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep creating encyclopedia articles? They do not belong here. --SVTCobra 15:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why on earth are you writing about yourself, then? This is not an encyclopedia! TheRumbler (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Shall we be best mates? TheRumbler (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a bit soon to be besties, but if you stop what you are doing, I won't block you. --SVTCobra 15:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine, you've got my word. But could you at least revert my page back, please? TheRumbler (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because it was a copy of Jason Trafford Mark Smith on Appropedia. If that is you, you are free to write about yourself, but don't format it like an encyclopedia article. --SVTCobra 15:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if my block of TheRumbler clashed with your intent, SVTCobra. With the page "Sock puppetry" and the apparently-informed disruption I didn't see how we would be ahead by leaving them loose on the project. --Pi zero (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I was going to give TheRumbler a 24 hour time-out if there was one more disruptive edit. I guess I am just a big old softie. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Dialog tools[edit]

You were saying something about our low output (something like, 'two articles on a good day'). It occurs to me I'm not sure if I've mentioned in your presence my "master plan". There's the view of the forest, and the view of the trees. The trees (or at least the underbrush as seen from their midst) would be Help:Dialog. The best pre-existing aerial view of the forest atm is User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters, though that's about the entire wikimedia sisterhood rather than specific to Wikinews (so it's missing stuff about specifically which tasks need attention here, in what order, and how to tackle them). --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Review...[edit]

Just wondering: If I were thinking of maybe writing the odd synthesis article, might it be possible you'd be able to review it, and when would be convenient for you? (Day of week? Time of day? Or the like?) --Pi zero (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I hesitate to commit to any particular day or time. My schedule is currently very open, not in that I don't have IRL things to do, but that there's nothing planned. I come here when I have free time or more accurately, when I need to relax/distract myself. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Cool. I didn't mean to suggest a commitment; at most, I'd figured on at most something statistical, if you wished to nudge me toward something more likely to work out okay. (I avoid promising to review, just as I avoid apologizing (as such) for not getting to a review, because it has seemed important not to obscure reviewers' volunteer status. I've speculated on innovative approaches to the logistical problem of matching up reviewer availability with article submission, but it's always seemed clear to me that technical inefficiencies needed to be fixed first.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I believe we are in the same time-zone. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I've been waiting for your synthesis article, but it hasn't come up yet. BTW, I have one that's been up for review for 24 hours. (and another much newer). Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, when I asked you about that, we were in the midst of a very slow spell on the review queue.

I noticed the first of your two current articles while you were still writing it. I've just had a frustrating day that's been one thing after another, and review hasn't happened even though I've had my eye on it the whole while. The chances are fading (though not quite gone yet) that I'll get myself into review mode before I lose my concentration entirely this evening. --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. ... It's easier to blow the "Truth about Immigration Lottery" out of the water four times than a serious review. --SVTCobra 02:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Come on! There was no slower 24-hour period than Wednesday/Thursday on Wikinews. I swear there wasn't even spam for hours. Not blaming you and you don't have to explain anything, but don't deflect. --SVTCobra 02:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In response to your remarks, I did what I tend to do when conversing on a reasonably cordial basis, offering some information of possible use. I don't understand deflect in this context. I was going to offer a comment or two regarding the immigration-lottery author, too (which I thought of passing interest re recruiting and reviewing); but, never mind. --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, with "deflect" I was trying to be polite. But it's ok if you say you took a day off if because you were tired of svt and agoya bullshit. I sure as hell would be if I were you. --SVTCobra 03:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's considerate of you (seriously; it is); but, I suggested I'd had a hectic day because I did have a hectic day. I didn't take a day off. You're quite right (though I'm not sure whether you meant it seriously, or not) that several decisive not-ready reviews of a newbie's article are easier to do than one full review of a veteran's, because smaller efforts, and smaller blocks of time, are easier to provide (and I reckon there's some insight there into making review easier). --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2018‎ IUTC_
Got one of your articles out the door (even though it was about a day later than I'd hoped). --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Got the other. Two full reviews in a day is usually my max output (requires veteran reportage, since newcomers' articles generally take lots longer); almost always means one in the morning, a second in the afternoon. And of course I mostly lost the ability to do evening reviews shortly after the 2012 elections. --Pi zero (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --SVTCobra 01:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do me a favour…[edit]

Stop pinging me. I don’t expect emails mentioning “Wikinews” in my inbox, and since you are dealing with the eps, (which you don’t understand fully because things happened during the inactivity [of course not before when you joined the project, I assume it was '06] I get a lot of emails — and pinging me makes me feel I have pending work on the project.
•–• 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So maybe your signature shouldn't have had PING ME! large bold letters. And you can do me a favor and stop editing from IP addresses, expecting to be taken seriously. And if I don't try to clear the backlog of {{editprotected}} who will? --SVTCobra 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Also you need to sight the eps after you make changes; the basic shit. FWIW, this project can be edited by anyone, and there is no discrimination against anonymous editors…as there also have been a case when anon's OR was published. Not everyone is like you — there are others who do not discriminate against anonymous editors.
•–• 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am not sighting is because you made a big stink about self-sighting. --SVTCobra 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
it was discussed and if I recall correctly, initial eps that you addressed were sighted after pizero told you it was okay to self-sight for categories…
223.237.221.194 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Pi zero notes that IPs cannot have equal status to registered users since there is no way to contact people who aren't logged in: messages to an IP's user-talk page aren't necessarily directed specifically to any particular person who used the IP, and a person who used one IP on one occasion might not be on the same IP in future. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Especially when it's dynamic IP addresses that change all the time.... --SVTCobra 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@223.237.221.194 ... I have been using HotCat to add categories, so those get auto-sighted ... it's all the others. --SVTCobra 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
<pi zero raises an eyebrow> Really? I thought we'd shut off all auto-sighting (with resounding consensus) years ago... --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/SVTCobra all the edits in yellow background are yet to be sighted.
•–• 13:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there aren't any atm. I sighted a bunch of them last night before the review I did, cutting down on clutter at the Category:Review page. --Pi zero (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. I did a test and I don't think HotCats is auto-sighting. It was probably just a coincidence because some other articles pre-date Flagged Revisions or something. I just know that not all of the changes I made needed review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Yes, many old articles are unsighted. I don't recall we've ever settled on a standard practice for when to sight them. Since the creation of {{w}} in January 2011 (use of which became de rigueur just about overnight once introduced, as I recall), I've been working backward through our archives by date, making sure each article is converted to use {{w}}. I'm still in mid-2010 (though I expect the process will speed up once I get some semi-automation on-line for it), but once that process gets to before systematic use of flaggedrevs, I suppose one might wish to use that conversion as a criterion for sighting. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence my hiding of content[edit]

We've got a particular vandal who posts that stuff, almost always from a different url but by their spam shall ye know them. At some point I started systematically hiding the revisions where they put those little vignettes, so if they wanted to recreate them they'd have to enter them fresh rather than merely revert. Thus. --Pi zero (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was a recurring problem. Didn't look at the history. --SVTCobra 01:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't occur in the same place, over time. Even the anecdotes have gradually morphed over time; but only gradually. --Pi zero (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to remember when it started. Recalling the months involved with some one-year IP blocks, it seems like it has been going on for more than a year. --Pi zero (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

WN:Archives[edit]

Btw, at BRS's suggestion a while back, I've been working on a major upgrade of our archives splash page. You can see my developing effort at User:Pi zero/Archives. Adjustments for passage of time are handled automatically there (though I had several difficulties with the on-this-day feature). --Pi zero (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, cool. Looks a bit too technical for me Face-smile.svg. --SVTCobra 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Politics of Zimbabwe[edit]

Hi, I see you've removed this cat from today's new article - don't you believe it has some added value after all to create it? See Wikidata: d:Q6944520 - there are already four other language versions of Wikinews (German, Dutch, Serbian and Esperanto) with this same category. And, of course, all Wikipedia language versions have it. De Wikischim (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All I was saying by removing it, was it does not exist. Personally, I am against category proliferation, but if you created the category and demonstrate that at least three articles belong in it, there's no policy that says it shouldn't exist. I just don't like red-linked categories on articles. At present, we only have four "Category:Politics of nnnn" on Wikinews. If we created one for every nation, it would be a tremendous project of going through the archives and populating them all; and only sysops can do it. I think it is overkill. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, actually it's not that difficult since even Robert Mugabe has a whole cat of his own here, which simply can become a "subcat" of Category:Politics of Zimbabwe, just newly created. I also wonder why "politics and conflicts" must be merged into one single cat? In my opinion, that's not logic at all. These two topics only have sometimes to do with each other. De Wikischim (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems I cannot move most of the articles in Category:Zimbabwe myself to the new cat, because they have been "frozen". Anyway each article in Category:Zimbabwe with "politics" in the title must be moved now to Category:Politics of Zimbabwe. In addition, every article which is "loose" now in Category:Zimbabwe rather belongs in the specific cat about Mugabe. With that, they are automatically in the broader cat "Zimbabwe". --De Wikischim (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say it was difficult to create, but there may be a bunch of other articles to add. If you put on the category talk page {{Fill this category}} and list all the articles that belong in it, eventually it will probably be sorted out. There are probably some not in the Mugabe category. What I am saying is, I am philosophically opposed to it. Others here, are not. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
OK I've placed the template now, but since there are rather many pages to add, I'll list them later. By the way, I just gave some clues hereabove; at least every article with politics" in the title simply belongs in the new subcat. De Wikischim (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw you removed Zimbabwe as a category. I will have to check with @Pi zero: what current attitudes are towards nesting categories. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, Category:Zimbabwe has become superfluous with the addition of this new cat. However, if you prefer to keep that main cat "Zimbabwe" too in the article, you can just put it back. De Wikischim (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In nearly all situations, we avoid creating intersection categories like this. They are unnecessary and burdensome and nearly guaranteed to proliferate inconsitencies in our category hierarchy. Although modernly we have encouraged creation of categories of particular sorts whose maintenance is facilitated by {{w}}, when it comes to this sort of intersection category, consensus here is still in keeping with SVTCobra's position. --Pi zero (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's completely up to you if you prefer not to keep such categories. However, I just believe they are useful. De Wikischim (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

US government shutdown[edit]

I think the topic as such surely does deserve an article of its own. I see you've just removed your own version. Anyway, are you still planning to write a new (updated, I suppose) one? De Wikischim (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll have time. But the one I deleted was about efforts to avoid the shutdown. And they failed, so it was moot. --SVTCobra 17:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)