Talk:ACLU, EFF challenging US 'secret' court orders seeking Twitter data

Video

• The video on this page doesn't play, I tried it on three very well known media players. The problem is it is in a very obscure non-standardized video file format. Will someone please reformat the file to a proper format such as avi/mpg/wmv etc so that it can be played on normal media players. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.178.56 (talk • contribs)
• No. Those are all non-free formats. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Original reporting notes

• All interview data was shared with scoop. Please ask accredited reporters to confirm, and respect the cryptographer's wish not to be named! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed; they all look like they're verifiable. — μ 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Urgent review

• Please note this article is marked for urgent review; not, as the template states, "breaking news". Do not publish with a breaking news template, please! --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that {{quick review}} doesn't make the Review option available on the drop-down. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really? Sorry, I didn't think about that, I just assumed it would work based on categories. DENDODGE 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't know about the template, but would've assumed the same. I just checked in the drop-down once you'd changed it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I still have the option to review the article. Are you sure it's not just you? DENDODGE 16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• It comes up now <shrug> --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
Scary review? 'tis a lengthy piece. ;-) --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• All interviewed subjects were notified 9-10 hours ago that this was pending review. The OR is confirmed above. Will someone (Anyone?) extract a digit from their derrier and review it soon? It's probably the most substantial piece of OR so far this year. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1209588 [Passed]

Revision 1209588 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was a monster to review. I'm pretty sure I didn't let anything slip through. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1209588 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was a monster to review. I'm pretty sure I didn't let anything slip through. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Heh, well that sucks. I was reviewing this too. That was a giant waste of effort on my part:(. Could have reviewed all the other articles in the time this single article took. Gopher65_talk 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I actually started last night, and only just finished. The fact that I slept in between means some stuff might have slipped through, but it needed reviewing and I didn't realise you were also doing it. I would appreciate your second pair of eyes just to make sure—with an article like this, there are so many things that could be slightly wrong. DENDODGE 15:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever! Thanks to both of you for working this over (instead of me). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)