User:Bddpaux/Archive 3

FAC nominationEdit

Two things, really.

  • An article can't be nominated for FA until it's been archived. That's at least a week after publication, longer at times of slow output.
  • Realistically, it's not FA material. Way too short. Take a look at WN:WIAFA.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

About 5 seconds after I nominated it, I went back and looked at the length more's awfully short. --Bddpaux (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I do identify with your enthusiasm about the pictures. Laura too has remarked on how well they're coming out. --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm laughing at myself, on this. BRS re-nominated this, and I've supported it. So much for self-consistency. :-P  --Pi zero (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


I have given you a talk back just in case you missed my message. :) Curtaintoad curtain or toad 04:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?Edit

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. It would be a really great time for you, as a Wikinews accredited reporter, to do some original reporting and conduct interviews. People should be around to interview to prevent a backlog, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Boston MarathonEdit


TUFKAAP is I believe now reviewing, and planning to not-ready, an article about it that was submitted by a University of Wollongong student. --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple explosions hit Boston MarathonEdit

Hi. I just wanted to give you a heads up that Multiple explosions hit Boston Marathon was published. While it meets all Wikinews's guidelines for publishing, during the review process, a fair amount of material was removed because it was not found in the article. In many cases, an article with this much unverifiable information would result in the article being marked as not ready. Given the breaking news aspect of this particular story, as the reviewer, I chose to just remove that information that was not verifiable based on the sources and to clarify the ambiguous statements like "it is believed" to properly credit the information. This was simpler and enabled the quicker publication of the story. As more information becomes available, or if a new perspective can be found on the topic, please feel free to write and submit another story on the topic. If you have any questions, please ask myself or another reviewer for assistance. For a faster response, if you can wait five minutes, we are often available on IRC to assist when we do review. --LauraHale (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Something like the bombing in Boston does not benefit at all from trying to write off broadcast live coverage. You're pulling the 'fog' the 24/7 news broadcasters are throwing out to keep people glued to their coverage.
For something like that, the only worthwhile OR is on-the-ground. Sorry. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Er? I could see writing off live broadcast coverage if it was televised press conference, but talking heads regurgitating... (I was watching the news and ABC24 was running the press conference with the police chief saying NO SUSPECT, and then they would flip to Boston local news which specifically said they had a suspect. It was so disconcerting.) Just unsure why this comment was left for Bddpaux unless I missed something? --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
One might well find, examining the page history carefully, that most of the material excised from the article during review was added by someone other than Bddpaux. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I commented on pretty much I think every major contributor's talk page since there were several, including at least one University of Wollongong student. Some of the things that I removed I knew I could verify (because I watched the Obama speech where the loss line was used). I intended to give basically a courtesy notification to all parties involved. The article that was published second was a lot stronger than the first article published, which was essentially a rush to publish while meeting all the bare requirements in order that we could have the time to develop a fuller, better article. (Hopefully that makes more sense.) I have always found Bddpaux's work to be pretty good, and there was no intend to suggest otherwise or that their contributions were the cause for the problems. (Though I did not consider it a bad thing in general to remind people checking for facts. My little bit of review analysis showed that accredited reporters like myself [probably mostly me] are one of the biggest cohorts of problems when it comes to reviews being not ready because of verification issues. I'm tired. Long day. My apologies. Babbling.) --LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Brian's comment is interesting in that, technically, yes policy here allows "observing" live feeds then using that as OR. HOWEVER, prudent thought (and experience!!!) reveals that even the big names are sometimes grabbing at all bits of flotsam that float their way. Proof, once again, that breaking stories should generally be kept very short, unless you're right there in the fray yourself. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Pretty much spot-on. As Laura states, a televised press conference is a good one, we stand a chance of the same starting run as the mainstream in-attendance. The talking heads? They'll seize on any old cobblers, and you can end up less-informed trying to follow a breaking story like the bombings via them. Wasn't dissing Bddpaux, Laura; I'd seen a few diffs holding notes from the aforementioned "talking heads" and wanted to highlight the risks. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Longview, Texas police involved in standoff with unnamed gunman‎Edit

I was lucky enough, for once, to be able to start reviewing your genuinely breaking article almost the moment you'd submitted it. Unfortunately, by the time I was loading the sources, about half an hour after you'd submitted, one of the sources had been updated to say the standoff had ended. Now that's breaking. :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assistance with understanding how much original reporting costsEdit

Hello and I apologize for writing in English. As all language Wikinews improves, The Wikinewsie Group wants to be able better support original reporting done by contributors like you. One of our newsletters at The Wikinewsie Group/Newsletter said you have recently published an original report. This is why I am contacting you.

Members of the The Wikinewsie Group are trying to assess the costs associated with original reporting across all Wikinews projects. This way, we can determine how much original reporting currently costs, who is paying for it, what Wikinews and other projects get for these costs (especially when paid for by unpaid, volunteer contributor reporters). This information can then be used in applying for grants, measuring the success of Wikinews original reporting and seeing how reporters can be better supported. If you could complete this survey on that topic, we would very much appreciate it. We will try to anonymize the responses as best possible when writing up any report. Thank you very much for taking the time to fill it out (especially in English). Please do not hesitate to ask me or pi zero about any questions you may have about this research. We hope the results will enable us to better assist you in conducting more original reporting on Wikinews. --LauraHale (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Article assistant toolsEdit

Since you sometimes start an article and find yourself short on time to finish it within deadline, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on what sort of interactive tools might help streamline the process of writing. This is a blue-skying sort of question. I'm now nearing ready to start using my tools to build interactive-assistance software, and am in the market for ideas about different kinds of interactive assistance one might want to provide. --Pi zero (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, hmmmm......not too sure right off-hand. Y'know, the one thing that's got me a bit chaffed lately is how my local rag will only put about 3 sentences of most articles online, but you have to be a paying subscriber to get the rest. I just don't know what to do with/for/about the world of print journalism anymore....I really all seems to be going downhill and they just want to sit around and whine about it....and make content EVEN HARDER to get ahold of. Maybe some concrete examples might help (as far as possible tools). I can tell you something concrete, though: there're articles that appear locally (Tyler Morning Telegraph)....and I know they're solid events/stories for a multi-national source like ours....BUT the event happened, say, last night, and there's really only that one, maybe 2 online articles about the event (at least, usually according to Google news, that is)...I'm rambling, I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I'm just trying to say that with local quick stories, it's hard sometimes to meet our 3/3 rule, that's all.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hm, yeah. There's a technical trick that often works to get around type of paywall, but of course it wouldn't be ethical to use it as a reporter. As a reviewer I've occasionally used it when the reporter appears to have had free access, but that is at worst a gray area since I'm just checking their work — and I generally recommend in review comments that in future they avoid that source. It'd be different if the reporter and reviewer were both bypassing a paywall. Our policy against pay-per-view sources has both legal and moral reasons — we're not out to undermine a news site's chosen economic model. --Pi zero (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Qualifying TexasEdit

A few of us did discuss unqualified state names upon a time, and felt Texas is an internationally recognized place name, like London (only bigger :-). Anyway, I've said my piece, and if you have a hankering to qualify it anyway, so be it. I did note on the article talk, that one would say "Idaho, US" rather than "Idaho (US)"; best avoid informational parentheses in news writing. --Pi zero (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Haunted attractions in Texas prepare for 2013 Halloween seasonEdit

It needs a lede to explain why the article exists. This honestly shouldn't be difficult (I speak as someone apt to make things harder than they have to be!). Wikinews spoke to some etc., kind of thing. See my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Published. --Pi zero (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks muchEdit

Thank you for your comments and participation in the discussion of Wikinews interviews New York bar owner on Santorum cocktail for WN:FA, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


I have replied to you here Gryllida 20:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy brews surrounding small Texas churchEdit

I really hope you get somewhere with this. It looks like something - currently minor - that could blow-up into a story the mainstream would be all over. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fleetwood MacEdit

Hi . I left a comment on the article review. If you could provide additional insight into your review there, it would be appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible review?Edit

Any chance of a review tonight? I need to format it still and send the source to scoop. --LauraHale (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I promise I'll try within the next 18 hours from this moment.....can you just put the source stuff on the talk page??--Bddpaux (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather not share e-mails, but I can paste the raw text. I e-mailed scoop with proof I e-mailed people, though hard to show no response. --LauraHale (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifiesEdit

with reference to your kind notes in my User talk page .

Following your advice in

I have now prepared

Does it work well? Am I understanding your advice?

Cheers rahulkepapa

Thanks a lot for your encouragements. I am learning and trying to follow your advice. I have shortened more the article. I will continue the issue on other small articles. Doing my best to conform to a Western style of English. Not so easy to be spontaneous in other cultures styles. I think some deviation should be allowed for styles of other cultural environments, since English is used differently in different cultural contexts. Grammar remains the same. But etiquette changes. Allowing some difference in styles may be enriching a global communication platform like wikinews that is meant to allow independent news making throughout the globe. Thanks a lot for your patience with me. I am learning a lot. -- Rahulkepapa (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Modern media battles in the ancient city of VaranasiEdit

I added quotations to the source list with reference to the antiquity of the city. But I do not know what I should do with reference to the dates. I put the date of today. Should a different template be used for sources in encyclopaedias?

Rahulkepapa (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


I've closed your RFP as successful and turned on your amin bit. Congratulations, and welcome to the janatorial team. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't had WN:AAA on your watchlist, you may now wish to add it. And there's also WN:BLOCK — note, we have the imho sanest blocking policy around, in that the opening paragraph states that the admin should use their best judgement and everything later on the page is guidelines. --Pi zero (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Cool. But, maybe I need some sort of primer on how to delete ancient abandoned articles. I'm tired right now....brain is fuzzy. --Bddpaux (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since I too am tired and fuzzy atm, I won't try tonight to describe how to do that. --Pi zero (talk) 04:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you're up to it.......I'm properly awake now! --Bddpaux (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Let's see.
  • Tagging articles as abandoned (trying to be really thorough, while I'm at it):
  • There should have been no meaningful activity on the article for four days or longer. Usually that means no edits at all.
  • The place to look for them is WN:Newsroom. It's a good idea to purge the page, so it's up-to-date. Most articles that might want tagging are Disputed, but occasionally they show up under In development, undisputed.
  • One usually puts {{subst:aband}} on the article. However, some articles should be moved to userspace instead of deleted, in which case one uses {{subst:aband|userspace=username}}. Userspacing articles is commonly done with original reporting, and lately we've (at least sometimes) userspaced articles written by students as part of coursework.
  • Selecting articles to delete (or to userspace):
  • Look at the Proposed deletions section near the bottom of WN:DR. There are four queues there, depending on how many days' notice is given for the particular type of deletion. Take the first queue with a grain of salt: it lists not only articles tagged for blatant copyright violation, but also articles reviewed as not-ready on the copyright criterion, and I've always tended to hang back on deleting an article after just one day because it was not-ready'd for copyright (unless the copyright problem was severe).
  • Deleting:
  • When deleting the article, the delete page has a menu of reasons for deletion; select from the menu Abandoned article - 2 day warning. The following field on the delete page is for additional info; by default it contains some info about the content of the page, and if the page has only been edited by one user there's a parenthetical remark identifying that sole author; myself (being a neatnik), I prefer to delete from that all the info about content, which just clutters up the deletion log and may even cause an overflow so one loses part of the parenthetical, but leave the parenthetical if there is one.
  • Then also delete the article's talk page, if there is one, selecting from the menu reason Disassociated talk or comments page; again I remove the supplementary stuff about content, but preserve any parenthatical about identity of an only editor. (An article almost never has only had one editor, but it does happen with the talk page, if the only stuff there is one or more reviews by the same reviewer.)
  • Userspacing:
  • This is a pain. One renames the article, with its talk page if any, and without leaving a redirect, by switching the space from (main) to User: and adding a prefix to the title "username/" — so, for example, an article by User:Pi zero with headline "Kangaroo attacks crowd in Mumbai" would be moved to User: space with title "Pi zero/Kangaroo attacks crowd in Mumbai". And then comes the bothersome part, which we hope eventually to build a tool for: decatting. The category tags at the end of the article get ":" added before "Category", thus [[Category:France]] becomes [[:Category:France]] and so on. Status templates at (usually) the top of the article get "tl|" added right after the {{, so {{tasks|...}} becomes {{tl|tasks|...}} and so on, and {{original}} and {{interview}} templates in the sources sectino get "tl|" added too. An infobox gets a parameter "nocat=1" added to it, so {{Texas}} becomes {{Texas|nocat=1}} and so on.
--Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Excellent news that you've been given the mop. Use it wisely! —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hmmmmm............Edit

Good day, Bddpaux. I would certainly be glad to contribute to Wikimedia (not only in terms of images shared within Wikimedia archive) but also in copy-editing (to begin with). As for today, my experience in editing within Wikipedia is limted only with adding images to Wiki articles and, as I've already mentioned, in uploading a number of documentary and travel works from my personal archives. To be brief, I'd be glad to attend to work within Wikinews.

  • User talk:Mstyslav Chernov Sounds great! Glad to hear that!! We're very happy to have you hear. BTW, you might want to sign each of your talk post with 4 tildes (four of these: ~ ) which will yield your version of this: Bddpaux (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • So, feel free to jump over to the Newsroom and have a go at it!! ...and, please: don't be too quick to get your feelings hurt, OK? We have standards here, but with persistence, you will learn them! Cheers! --Bddpaux (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you kindly for assistance and good advice! As for today I'm getting used to Wikinews space and, surely, will have my first try to jump into it one of these days! Mstyslav Chernov (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The Common WealEdit

Did you get a change to check out the abandoned video report for that? (sent link-to out to scoop). --Brian McNeil / talk 22:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry......too busy. --Bddpaux (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


I've hit a snag reviewing the flu article: is refusing connections. If it becomes available at some point, and I notice, I can finish the review fairly quickly. Anyway, so's you know, that's what's going on with the article atm. (Too bad I wasn't up to reviewing it later yesterday; the problem might not have existed then.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Pi zeroWell, I sent that one off into the ether and plugged in a more local source.......I really only grabbed that tiny bit for the end of para 2 from the Gant daily article, and the local one I inserted in its place should suffice readily. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


At the accreditation requests I noticed you oppose occasionally if the candidate has not contributed much here. I might note that the accreditation is a thing needed for other regions Wikinews too. While having it centralized at English Wikinews may be unintuitive, it is done so, and it in my understanding currently with a broad scope. Gryllida 08:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Though I agree, more or less, it does also seem fair that we want to know what the candidate has done for some Wikinews, and whether it reflects our journalistic values. In understanding that, it's admittedly easier for us to really grok what someone has done on en.wn that on some-other-language.wn. (Indeed, it's not impossible that some-other-language.wn might have much different journalistic values, which is something we'd need to watch out for, a bit.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with aspects of both these remarks. TWG is supposed to be there to facilitate any language variant doing OR, and part of that will be encouraging them to set up their own accreditation programmes which are validated as some as-yet-undefined minimum standard. There are real problems with this in more than a few European countries; many have government-issued press IDs which are only given out to people who make the majority of their income from journalistic work. That is a problem, and it will be one of TWG's tasks to lobby for such rules to be amended. I am aware of one legal case in Belgium where the judge applied the laws usually reserved for recognised journalists to a blogger. So, there's hope on that front. On the flip-side, such laws have discouraged several languages from even trying to set up an accreditation process.
I've been 'practically comatose' in terms of content creation over the last year. That doesn't just need to change, my New Year's resolution will be to do something about it. AffComm recognition of TWG is useless if we do nothing with it, and if I am made redundant in the New Year I'll have plenty time to cause trouble; starting with being the first Wikinewsie to be recognised as a member of the press by a government. WM-UK have offered whatever help I need to get that recognition from the Scottish Parliament, so we'll see. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, I suppose this whole discussion shines some much needed light on things (for me, at least). I thought each WN project stood on its own two feet (accreditation-process-wise) but I guess that isn't true. It still seems a bit clumsy to me, though, that we're to weigh in on a person whom we know very little about (work-wise, that is). So, English WN is the giant decision-mill over who does/doesn't get accredited? Something just seems a bit odd about that, really. --Bddpaux (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Each Wikinews 'should' stand on its own, yes. But, that presents headaches where there's some of these issues around how countries which use a particular language look at the press. France is one of the countries where their interior ministry issues press credentials to journalists (on that 'make the majority of your income from the trade' basis). Thus, when the issue came up there is was met with "what's the point?"
I want to see each language sort themselves out with an accreditation process, and have TWG verify that meets as-yet unspecified minimum criteria before any access/credentialing by the group takes place. As has been demonstrated, there are quite a few problems with accreditation all being routed through enWN. The most-obvious is, as you highlight, we've very little visibility of appropriate use of credentials.
Back in the dim and distant past, when we first set up accreditation here, there was discussion about the process taking place over on meta. I'd rather not see that, because I find meta largely useless. For the current request that prompted this discussion, the problem is we're talking about a photographer. Their work is going to end up over on Commons, which gives us a whole new set of headaches. I'm sure we'll get some progress on clarifying this in the new year, I doubt I'm alone in finding the rate of progress painfully slow. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
English Wikinews has some advantages that none of the others Wikinewses (afaik) have, deriving from the fact that, whatever our size is right now, our infrastructure was built by a, comparatively, very large number of journalism enthusiasts. We've got infrastructure in place, including the key elements of our meritocratic system, that it'd be hard to imagine evolving by any less labor-intensive route. --Pi zero (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • God knows I'm no huge lover of committees....but maybe it'd be a good idea to discuss this whole bit of business in the large scale via such a group. --Bddpaux (talk) 03:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've thrown a few points up on the Water Cooler, and I certainly agree with your sentiment about committees; but, what I believe TWG should be is more of a co-operative. All has helped with is improving the chances for individual acts of 'social engineering'. We've no backstop if something goes wrong, if we find one of our reporters jailed or similar. Your remarks on the current accreditation request echo my own thoughts: "Have you got skin in the game?" That's why I think it needs to go out to the relevant language communities; their reputation depends on the people who might contribute there on the basis of accreditation.

I don't want the current Water Cooler discussion to be as crude as 'enWN pushing the problem onto the other languages', and I can rarely be bothered going over to Meta for discussions, seeing the failure of WN:WORTNET as vindication this is a common Wikinewsie view. I would like to see a bit more local input on the raised points before highlighting the discussion on other languages. I tend to do better at defining technical problems, and some of the challenges TWG faces are anything but technical and thus well-definable. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

US temperatures edge upward following brutal winter stormEdit

I really struggled to identify what was bothering me and whether it was something to not-ready the article on. This is subtle stuff. I did my best to explain my thinking in the review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Pi zero Yeah, y'know...I feel you. I'm the quickest one to stomp around and talk about the "spirit" of an article.....I think I might've just started a bit too early on that one!! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Mailbox quotaEdit

I noticed a 'caution' on the quota of your mailbox. No problem if you need the quota upped — since you're obviously still active in the community — if you do need a bump, or any other issues with email, give me a shout. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I deleted a few old ones......I'll hit a few more later this week. Hopefully, that'll pull me under the limits. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Noted magician, Aldo Colombini dies following strokeEdit

Is this going to be worked on in the future? Should I try and start hunting for references? I can't seem to find any. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It's tagged abandoned and scheduled to be moved to userspace. And overdue to be moved to userspace, actually. Doing that now. --Pi zero (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Bddpaux/Noted magician, Aldo Colombini dies following stroke. --Pi zero (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikinewsie emailEdit

Your mailbox is currently over-quota.

Can you please resolve this as it is causing bounces on scoop? If you need a password reset, please let me know. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! (Note, haven't checked on the hosting yet). You're clearly still here, and still working. As part of the move to Amsterdam I imposed quotas on people where, 'technically', I could give most users gmail-sized allocations. If a bigger mailbox allocation helps — in the short-term! — happy to do so in your case. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Citizens express both praise and worries over Texas rainsEdit

I've been worrying about this, in the background, as I've been reviewing other things. I looked it over a bit shortly after you'd submitted it, and I just wasn't sure whether it was coming out newsworthy. Or possibly within range that a really well-chosen small tweak to the lede, of a sort that a reviewer can do, would make it work. Though I'm sure sitting on the queue hasn't been doing it a bit of good. --Pi zero (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

By-and-large, my lede is a bit weak-ish. For now, I'll let the winds decide its fate. I was really hoping to get a lot of good farmer quotes, but wasn't quite able to bring that to fruition. Whatever happens, for my next one, I'll need to hit the "four bad years and now a good year"-angle much harder. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I tried to provide useful review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Election committeeEdit

Would you care to add your name to a bulleted list at WN:Arbitration Committee/2014 election#Election committee members? Since it'd look best if the edit was by you (though I s'pose any of us could do it, referencing the water cooler). --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

....and done. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Voting has closed. Would the election committee care to set up a page WN:Arbitration Committee/2014_election/Results, along the lines of WN:Arbitration Committee/2013_election/Results? --Pi zero (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to do just that. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep me postedEdit

Keep me posted on Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2014 election/Results, and when it's complete I'll look it over and certify after you've certified it. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Haunted attractions open across Texas for 2014 Halloween seasonEdit

Same hang-up as last year, I see (alas for the delay reviewing; well, it happens). I've found it impressive what a difference a lede can make. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Being bothered by User:Pi zeroEdit

He is bothering me with rubbish each edit. He is never contributing. He deletes articles comments sites here, although the article is existing. Articles under development are clean up articles. I might not write about RB Leipzig. My started articles have interest and he says that other archived articles are which from amateur clubs, university clubs or something else. He wants to rename my name here and is not rename me. My articles are written after the style such as about other proven football match reports. He is psychic unable to name reasons. Please remove him from the board! He neither productive nor socially competent or educated, for a globally representative on public free sites. --Nikebrand (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I will respond at your talk page. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


You should forward those emails to scoop. --Pi zero (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, y'know, it always seems so weird to have a transcript of the interview on the talk page, and then the interview just (essentially) re-pasted as the 'article.' --Bddpaux (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Tools for writingEdit

This thread might be of interest? --Pi zero (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Two-time plane crash survivor, Austin Hatch, scores first goal in college sportsEdit

Well, published. Had some difficulty with distance from source along the way. --Pi zero (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Trial begins in Kaufman County, Texas murdersEdit

If I'm not just confused, there's a single-source problem here. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Closer. Different problem encountered. I'm finding this a rather fascinating story. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

FA promotionEdit

Just a note, for future reference. I voted for the Delph interview, of course. But we do generally wait for more votes; I've seen promotions with four votes, myself I prefer to wait for five. --Pi zero (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah....I concur. It had just lingered for so darned long...... We really should have, (informally, at least) some sort of set threshold. It's weird, some articles that get nominated fall into a sort of or two votes and then you can't buy another vote for 10 bucks! --Bddpaux (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If we had an assistant for closing those things —which I really mean us to have, eventually, because there are so many fiddly details to it— the assistant could offer advice on the decision as well as the procedure. --Pi zero (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Hey! Quick note, profession-cats (Category:Scientists, Category:Lawyers, Category:Musicians etc) are aimed to group other categories into. I've recently gone through them and added recommendations on each for where to put individual articles. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikinewsie emailEdit

I'm getting bounce messages due to your wikinewsie mailbox being full. If you need a password reset, please let me know and confirm you've a working email address associated with your account here (so I can send the new password via 'email this user'). --Brian McNeil / talk 10:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Things should be a bit better now. --Bddpaux (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Not looked, and happy to bump your quota up if that's what's needed. However, I'd be happier to have a confirmation you've changed the password as well. Pick one that's long-enough the NSA will have to work on it.
Wish I could get my head into the right frame of mind to contribute more here, but I've been distracted, and working on other things. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)