User talk:Cromium/Archive 2

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

File pages with no files

Thank you for finding these. Some of them seem to have had pictures once upon a time, but I don't see anything in the logs. Do you have any ideas for how this could happen? --SVTCobra 23:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Cheers for deleting them. I might be wrong but I don’t think most of them ever had files attached to them. I think the description page was created either by mistake (e.g. the one with an external link pointing to a Wikipedia article) or for nefarious purposes such as the one named after a certain deceased musician. I found them on Special:UncategorizedFiles, mainly because I am curious about such orphaned pages. By the way did you have a look at the page I pinged you from (something about italicising the page title)? Green Giant (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did see it. It's a good tip. There is some question, however, whether Wikinews should be in italics. Newspapers are typically italicized, but websites are not. Not that Wikipedia is the ultimate authority, but they do not italicize w:Wikinews nor do we most places. BTW, I know you spend most of your time over at Commons; would you consider yourself an expert on interwiki licenses and copyrights? Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: We generally do italicize "Wikinews" when we're being careful, in my experience (I recall brianmc pointedly doing so), although I know it's not universal because someone disagreed and removed the italics from... I think it was WN:PEP (which reminds me, I was thinking I might go back later and consider restoring the italics there). We tend not to when we're in a hurry, of course. --Pi zero (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Glad I could help. I am not an expert as such but I became a Commons admin because of my attention to detail in licenses and copyright. Do you need an opinion on something? Green Giant (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, kind of. Over at WN:DR we have a template {{Cover}}, which I created locally by copying one from Wikipedia and changing the text to fit Wikinews. Now, as you probably know, Wikinews' and Wikipedia's licenses are not compatible, a point which I had to concede. Now, I may be grasping at straws, but do templates constitute content per the project's license, or is it appropriate to consider them to be part of the code and markup language which is covered by Mediawiki's quite free GPL license? I thank you in advance for your thoughts. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Hmm...Interesting question. The quick answer is that templates are definitely not content. If you look at WP:Copyrights, it discusses "article texts and illustrations", not templates or help pages or WikiProjects or Wikipedia (project space) pages. The only other arguable content would be Drafts because they are clearly intended as future articles. The only content in that sense is the text and images used in articles; such things are affected by copyright. Have a look at Help:Template#Creating_and_editing_templates and note that it says:

Templates often make use of programming features—parameters, parser functions and other magic words—which allow the transcluded content to vary depending on context. There are also special tags to control which information is transcluded and which is not.

That is clearly referring to code i.e. using the software to create an effect. Can I copyright the boldness of the words "the subject" or is it just the actual words that are affected rather than the six ''' ''' or indeed the nowiki tags I have just utilised? Yes, there are copyright fonts but that’s a different issue. A template could theoretically be subject to one or more patents but it is impossible unless you also patent the underlying software and it's features, which we all know is not the case. Jimmy Wales or Brion Vibber lost that opportunity in 2003 or 2004, when they publicised the software (I can’t remember clearly but they moved to a new setup). So in summary, it is not a copyright violation to re-use the code for the template. One could argue about the wording that is displayed but I think that is easily solved by changing it, although I don’t think there is a reason to do so. You are correct when you talk of Sister projects but it goes deeper than that. Every Wikipedia user is first and foremost a Wikimedia user (demonstrated by the fact that once I login to WN, I can switch to Commons right away without having to login again, annoying glitches aside). So every user who has edited the original template on Wikipedia is also a Wikinewsie (whether they wish it or not). It is patently absurd to pretend, for example, that User:Green Giant on Commons is somehow legally a different person to User:Green Giant on Wikinews. I hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(Pi zero would probably disagree with some of that after staring at it long enough.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That would not surprise me since you have an uncanny ability to pick out occasional flaws on my logic but I’m pretty certain this is foolproof. Green Giant (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

(Btw, I second the thanks for finding those file pages with no files.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

New categories

Hi. Generally, we want to populate a new category before we create a mainspace redirect for it, since the mainspace redirect will instantly draw wikilinks via {{w}}.

Two concerns for creating the category: what exactly should be the name of the category (it seems likely "Category:Bloomberg News" is more accurate, but that's just my quick first impression), and what previously published articles do we have would belong in the category? We want to have at least three published articles for a new category before we create it. --Pi zero (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Ack! I seem to remember we had a similar discussion many moons ago. Your suggestion of “Category:Bloomberg News” makes sense. I was thinking that some appropriate articles for this category might be:

• Invited or not, news outlets criticize White House decision to pick and choose their peers, which discusses Bloomberg being amongst the selected media;
• NASA scientist: Chile earthquake may have shifted Earth's axis, shortened day, which centres on an email sent to Bloomberg;
• US stocks slump as crude oil surges, gold hits 25 yr high, which discusses analysis done by Bloomberg.

If you disagree, then I’m happy to tag it for deletion. Green Giant (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Those are plausible. I've found categories for news orgs somewhat challenging to populate retroactively from the archives since they're mentioned (and linked) in source citations. I've added those three. --Pi zero (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I've created a redirect for "Bloomberg News", which obviously should go directly to the category. I'm planning to make "Bloomberg" a disambiguation page, with items for Category:Bloomberg News and Category:Michael Bloomberg. One might create a category for "Bloomberg L.P." as well, which would be a parent of "Bloomberg News" and might inherit the articles from the latter (and I'm pretty sure there are some articles related to Bloomberg L.P. in its own right). --Pi zero (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost

A good thought; a couple of remarks, on this interesting case.

• Mainspace is primarily for published articles; we make two exceptions (both of which we fully protect for security reasons): the main exception is for redirects (most redirects from mainspace to elsewhere are to categories; those that aren't mostly belong in Category:Non-news mainspace redirects), and in relatively recent times we also allow for disambiguation pages. Because of the way {{w}} works, if we don't have a mainspace target for "Wikipedia Signpost" it sends the wikilink to Wikipedia mainspace, which seems to me a reasonable dispassionate behavior.
• We should generally avoid sighting mainspace non-article pages.

--Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Fair enough. I just thought the user mistakenly created it in the wrong namespace. Regarding the Signpost, I feel it is a pity that the project and the In The News section were never moved here. The internal news could have been called The Wikimedia Signpost and reported on a lot more things. Why does Wikipedia need a separate ITN project when it could have just used the five leads from the WN mainpage? I suppose people build up defensive walls and become resistant to change. It is the same with WikiTribune, makes no sense to not just propose an expansion of Wikinews. A real missed opportunity. Green Giant (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I think the consensus on WP is that WN is a failed project. We used to have a direct link to our Main Page from the ITN box, that said "More news here", but they removed it. The idea that WN populate ITN has been proposed more than a few times. Here's one Proposal: Wikinews Main Page Leads. Sorry for butting in. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

There has always (since before my time, anyway) been a sororicidal faction at Wikipedia, passionately desiring to destroy Wikinews (no, I'm not exaggerating; I thought the oldtimers were a bit paranoid when I first came here, but things I've seen in the years since are beyond appalling). Signpost was for many years a hotbed of that faction, and that has not altogether faded; I somewhat recall that, not too terribly long ago, someone from Signpost was thinking of giving Wikinews a bit of casual coverage of the cordial collegial sort that friendly sister projects do, and got slammed for it from a noted Wikinews delenda est advocate. It's been remarked (not by me, but I agree) that ITN is the only example in the sisterhood of one sister deliberately seeking to undermine another sister above the fold on their main page. Yes, there used to be a link from ITN to here; it was removed as part of a concerted effort with, as I recall, explicit sororicidal intent, which was spearheaded by an "op-ed" on Signpost (they also tried to delete all Wikipedia templates that provide sister links to Wikinews; but from what I've heard, in the time since then, our relations with the person who actually wrote the "op-ed" have mellowed).

Re the nature of Signpost versus the nature of Wikinews: simply put, Signpost is a newsletter; it is not news. An interesting specific aspect of this is that Signpost has a neutrality problem. We have a clear notion of news neutrality here at en.wn, which is of paramount importance for news but I do not think it would work for a newsletter such as Signpost (nor for an encylopedia, at least not without radically rethinking one's approach to writing an encylopedia), and Wikipedia itself has a notion of encyclopedic neutrality that, besides of course being thoroughly inappropriate for news, would I think also be ill suited to a newsletter. But I don't think they've found a newsletter alternative that works very well. --Pi zero (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you find this file?

Hi Green Giant. Wikinews lost File:Gran incendio de Valparaíso de 2014.jpg this image. Can you check if it was deleted on Commons for copy-vio or bad quality? If possible, we'd like to restore it for Valparaíso fire displaces thousands, kills at least a dozen. Thanks, --SVTCobra 01:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: It was nominated for deletion through c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gran incendio de Valparaíso de 2014.jpg, but was then tagged for copyvio speedy deletion by User:Diego Grez-Cañete. The photo seems to have been credited to Raúl Zamora - Agencia UNO under a CC-BY-NC license but I can’t see the page properly and there is no archived version at Internet Archive. You can however see the photo at 24horas.cl. I hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Definitely FU ineligible, although other news outlets do that all the time. Thanks. --SVTCobra 01:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

I'm honestly unsure about the following question: if an image is used as sourcing for an article, is it possible for that to count as being "used" on the project for purposes of fair use? Images like that are sometimes displayed on an article's collaboration page, and sometimes they're merely linked. In the latter cases, the image page says it's not used on the wiki, while Special:WhatLinksHere gives a different answer; and I don't see that the difference between being displayed on a talk page versus linked there makes any difference to its relevance to sourcing, so oughtn't make any difference (one or the other) to its suitability (or unsuitability) as a fair-use image. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: My understanding of fair use (bearing in mind I’m not versed in US law), is that it has to be some significant purpose e.g. to identify the subject of an article or to critically discuss the work. For example, in File:2011_Fixture.pdf, the only mention was Rockerball pointing to its location. I’m assuming the reviewer looked at it for verification but there didn’t seem to be any discussion (although I might be wrong because I’ve gone through a few more files since I tagged it). Compare it with File:-OccupyWEF igloo construction.jpeg, which needed a bit of sourcing (had to dig through a Twitter gallery) but it is being used in an article: easier to write a rationale. Green Giant (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Descriptions vs Captions

Some of the ComicCon images to which you are adding infoboxes to, should probably have a shorter and more matter-of-fact descriptions, rather than the sometimes fanciful captions used in the articles. The "You Shall Pass" photo is a prime example. I believe the uploader will object to this, as well. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Page move

Thanks. Wow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: You're welcome. I have an unusal eye for spelling and grammar, which sometimes makes me wake up at night to fix something that has been at the back of my mind, rather than sleeping like normal people. :) Green Giant (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple of users have taken a look at this but it's yet to be published. Can you do me the favor? I don't want to step on anyone's toes but I don't think anyone has actually taken ownership of reviewing it for publication yet. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Need tools like "nominate for deletion"

You might be aware of the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left hand side on Wikimedia Commons. Can you understand the code [or even access the code], and create a smaller version of it for Wikinews?
•–• 03:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

(Alas and alack. Just the sort of thing I want to be able to easily turn out using a dailog-based meta-assistant.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That tool can add templates to multiple pages -- I want that to work for the admin dashboard templates. It depends if Green Giant knows how it works (I think it uses AJAX).
•–• 03:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a coder but I understand it is JavaScript and can be found at c:MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete.js, with a help page at c:Help:QuickDelete. How that actually works is something I couldn’t explain but I tend to play around with the code to see the effect. By far the most powerful tool is Visual File Change, with which you can do mass nominations for deletion, carry out mass deletions, replace text in numerous files in seconds. Certainly makes life easier but equally not something that should be available widely because of the potential for damage. For example I once deleted some 6,000 files in about 10 minutes. Green Giant (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Lenj07

Very ominous "will be deleted at once"! Is that why it took us just over 10 years to catch this one? LOL --SVTCobra 23:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Hahaha. Yes, it is very threatening but I blame the template creator. You’d be surprised the length of time some spam has been around. I found one userpage on English Wikipedia which was from 2004, and even had undergone several maintenance edits by bots and peopl using semi-automatic tools! Green Giant (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is some pretty ancient spam you've found, thanks for finding it, —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

You’re welcome. I think it’s just that we’ve rarely looked at this kind of spam but it’s become a bit of an obsession for me of late. Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Napzilla

I am often conflicted with some of these user pages, but this one especially. Is it oversharing details for my taste? Yes, absolutely. Does it really warrant deletion? Not so sure. You and Pi zero have put in some time at Wikibooks, where this user has the identical userpage. Wikibooks:User:Napzilla. He also has it at Mediawiki mw:User:Napzilla. At Wikipedia:User:Napzilla the user seems to have spent more time and the user page evolved, but for years it was basically the same. What do you think? --SVTCobra 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I understand the attempt to keep pretty much the same userpage on different wikis because I did this too in 2006. This was of course before global userpages, and I’m sure he probably didn’t intend for it to be so detailed. Even if the only edits are to the userspace, I tend to give such userpages a lot of leeway. What tips it for me is the three-paragraph (auto)biography section and the education section listing degrees. To be fair I’ve seen much more extensive pages with similar sized autobiographies accompanying much more information about on-wiki activities. However, if in doubt, I’d say don’t delete it. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Without immediately endorsing a specific decision on this case, I note that some things that are tolerated on some sisters are not tolerated on en.wn. We're more advert-sensitive here. --Pi zero (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, Pi zero: An interesting example of userpage misuse (at least in my mind) is the biography on User:Dileepkumar Thankappan, which the user kindly copied to their user talk. I’d be tempted to tag it for speedy deletion but wanted your opinions first. Green Giant (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, both the user page and talk page seem to be copied from Facebook when I google the first paragraph. This seems to be an example of classic self-promotion and/or a fan posting a biography of their favorite Yogi. This one is an easy speedy for me.

The Napzilla one does have a lot a links, but they are not spammy at all, imho. --SVTCobra 16:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Press releases

Hi. How are you finding the exact copies? I googled several different paragraphs from the Building the Roads of the Future in India, but didn't get any matches. Different search engine? Option in google search? Let me know, thanks. --SVTCobra 19:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that ISSUU article is not a match. Same topic, but quite a bit different. --SVTCobra 19:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Hello. Yeah, I realised the source is a bit longer but the WN paragraphs are direct copies. As for your earlier question, I use Google but there is no specific setting. It’s more of an art than a skill to be honest. For example, I tend to search for the second or third paragraph (if there is one) because I’ve found that sometimes the user edits the first paragraph to avoid copy detection. I look for things that can’t be easily changed e.g. that page mentions Akhilesh Srivastava, so I selected about fifteen words before his name and fifteen words after, because Google restricts searches to 32 words. I also know that usually the copying is done from a reliable source because few people are going to bother with someone’s musings on a minor blog about cats and dogs for instance. I have an eye for details, so I can quickly ignore links that I don’t think will be relevant. In this case I know that ISSUU is a publishing website. I double check by opening the WN page, replace a couple of paragraphs with material from the source, and use the show changes function to compare the two pages. Not much else to it really. I hope that helps. Green Giant (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018

NO! I am an honest person. I do the same things as Widr. BREAKING NEWS: Comedian Sir Ken Dodd has died at the age of 90. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HackerGeek (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 March 2018

Well, honesty includes things like not claiming to be an administrator when you aren’t one. Honesty also involves not copying and pasting copyright material as you did with the Ken Dodd story (great comedian by the way, will be sorely missed). Green Giant (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I will be ALWAYS be honest. I've always dreamed of becoming an administrator. I have put my user page in my own words. Could you at least give my user page a really cool look, please? BREAKING NEWS:Celebrity chef and radio presenter Darren Simpson, dies age 40. Celebrity chef and radio presenter Darren Simpson, dies age 40.HackerGeek (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear. If you want a cool userpage, there is none cooler than mine. Feel free to copy it (without the admin/OTRS etc). Green Giant (talk) 11:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@HackerGeek: You seem to be struggling mightily with that honesty promise. --SVTCobra 14:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you the twin of NerdyLady now? What a coincidence between your lives, eh? Green Giant (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Titles

Hi Green Giant. While it is true, you will often see titles like "Country: This news happened", I would not say that it is preferred by any stretch of the imagination. (Although I actually thought it had become so when I returned to more active editing, so I don't blame you for thinking the same.)

What it is, though, is an easy way to fix a title when the original author forgot to mention the country. Just slap it on with a colon and then there's nothing wrong with it. It is also a good way to avoid titles like this unfortunately named Airborne sedan smashes into dental office in Santa Ana, California, US. Three geo-locations separated by commas is pretty ugly in my opinion.

Personally, I don't mind the style, especially if it is useful. I also know, Pi zero has an outright distaste for that style.

P.S. The Tillerson article is up for review if you have the time. I don't think it is a terribly complicated review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Thank you for the explanation, and yes that sedan article has a bad name! I have reviewed the article and it is now Lead 2. Well done! Green Giant (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! We have had an unfortunate stretch without publishing on Wikinews. By the way, Mirror's exposé prompts call for inquiry into child abuse ring in Telford, England is up for review if you are bored and have nothing else to do. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Done but this isn't a sign of boredom or having nowt else to do! —Green Giant (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

New category

Instead of spending time on various article talks making an edit protected request, consider compiling a list of all the articles and leave it on the talk page of category with {{fill this category}} tag. Actually, an admin dashboard was my proposal which looks like this (the following; which should make things easier. See Category talk:Pixar Animation Studios for example.

Speedy deletion requests: 40  Pages to be protected: 1  Categories to be populated: 12  flagged pages: 12  Abandoned pages: 36  Pages to be wikified: 0  Protected pages to be renamed: 2 

Unused fair-use files: 12  Files on Commons: 6  Pages to sight: 0  Add categories: 0  Remove categories: 0  Issue correction: 2  Refresh

New Pages • Upload log

Deletion log
Review log
Move log

Links: [[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}]]
•–• 02:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers, I’ll bear this in mind. The dashboard is a good idea. Have you proposed it at the water cooler yet? Green Giant (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

<dropping in> My own tentative concern about the category-filling task template was that we've been growing our category hierarchy at the rate we can afford to for some years, because it's mostly only admins who start a new category and they don't start such a task unless they know they have the time available to finish it; so creating a template that seems to encourage non-admins to request it could end up burdening admins. Though on the other hand it would decrease the admin labor per category added. --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

A sort of catch-22 situation. I can see the advantages of streamlining the requesting process, especially if it involves more than a few articles. As for encouraging non-admins, perhaps the text could be tweaked to give some criteria for what can and can’t be requested? Green Giant (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Category creation is sometimes a tricky business for various reasons, including the difficulty of working out what categories are appropriate to a news site (some-language wikinewses have a category for free speech, others a category for censorship, and either creates a certain bias; so when I set out to create a category about guns I wanted to avoid that, which ruled out right-to-bear-arms and gun-control, and it took me much puzzling to come up with Category:Gun politics). But, subject to design complications, it can be a great advantage to have someone plan it all out so the admin just has to look it over, adjust and approve the plans, and implement it straightforwardly — as long as it doesn't get out of hand. A queue of such things waiting to be acted on still makes me nervous, though. --Pi zero (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Not news

re this the headline doesn’t seem to be a news headline, but without content, I don’t think one should make the call it is news or not.
223.237.228.181 (talk) 09:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, changed to A2 test. My understanding of "no meaningful content" (A1) is that it refers to content added by a user but does not include automatically generated content such as that from WN:WRITE. The headline is not going to be news, unless by some 1-in-a-gazillion chance, Coldplay the band get involved with Tumblr! Regardless, I think it qualifies for speedy deletion. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 09:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

isn’t news unexpected? There was a torrential rain related article few days ago which seemed to be encyclopaedic by the headline but was a news article.
223.237.228.181 (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

News isn’t always unexpected e.g. the current collapse of Toys R Us was expected for quite a while. I suppose you could divide it into three broad categories: if something happens (i.e. unexpectedly e.g. the poisoning of the Russians in Salisbury over a week ago), when something happens (mostly expected e.g. the expulsion of Russian embassy staff following that poisoning), and if and when something happens (a less likely mix of the two e.g. President Putin suddenly announcing Russia was responsible for said poisoning). That Coldplay Tumblr page fits none of these categories because it’s so far fetched as a headline. It is fine of course to have a temporary non-news headline while you try to work it out e.g. the Tillerson sacking article but I think the anonymous user was testing rather than looking to write some news. Green Giant (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminds me of a paradox, floating around in various forms, which I first encountered as 'the paradox of the unexpected egg'. You're presented with a row of upside-down cups (let's say, five of them), and you're told that under one of them is an egg, and the cups will be lifted one at a time starting at your left. You are told that when the cup is lifted to reveal the egg, it will take you entirely by surprise. From this, you reason that the egg cannot be under the last cup, because by the time that cup is lifted you'll already know the egg has to be there. But then, knowing it's not under the last cup, you can reason similarly that it can't be under the second-to-last, and by induction you prove that the egg isn't under any of the cups. The cups are then lifted one at a time, under one or another of them is an egg, and it takes you entirely by surprise because you'd proved that the egg couldn't be there. --Pi zero (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

A paradox indeed. Even more of a surprise might be if there was no egg when you’re expecting one. I would have been genuinely surprised if the page had had a story about Coldplay collaborating with Tumblr! Green Giant (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I can’t help if you are hell bent believing that nobody would ever write a news article with a headline that did not appear like a news headline. Maybe if you stay active for long enough, you would come to know that’s not true.
•–• 16:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to be a little skeptical at times, otherwise the wiki would be filled with half-baked spam and test pages. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I’m hell bent or that I don't know how to read a headline but I managed 10,000+ Commons edits, about 7,000 admin actions, and about 2,500+ Wikipedia edits last year (when I had less spare time). More than a thousand edits and more than five hundred admin actions per month isn’t bad for an "inactive" person. Green Giant (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

United States: At least fifteen dead in Southern California after rain causes mudslides and floods

Hi. This is kind of a personal favor, I am going to ask you. In this article, we have File:San Diego Coast Guard - Santa Barbara County - 09 Jan 2018.webm this video. I uploaded it to Commons and submitted it for review. It's been 3 months and no one has reviewed it. At this point, I am starting to worry that the Coast Guard might remove it before it gets reviewed. If this is an inappropriate request, feel free to ignore it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Reviewed. Not inappropriate at all. Feel free to ask if there’s more Commons-related stuff. Green Giant (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

WN:Future

Just noting (for future reference... hm, bit ironic that), the second half of the lede of United States President Trump dismisses Secretary of State Tillerson violates WN:Future. It's not as bad as it might be, since it's somewhat possible to read it as being covered by "Trump announed" from the first sentence; but not ideal. Yeah, I know, it's impossible to catch everything; but I noticed that one, so thought I'd mention. --Pi zero (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am most directly responsible, since it was my words. It should have been "Trump stated he will nominate ..." to fully comply. Sometimes it feels like it's covered by the first sentence, though, and that everything following in the same paragraph is covered by that attribution. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Pi zero, thanks for pointing this out. The way I understood it was just what SVTCobra says, namely that it’s difficult to separate the intended nominations from the sacking. I’ll bear it in mind though. Green Giant (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandal on the loose

Guess who. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.197.121.216 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 March 2018‎

I'm happy for you. It's good to get out and about sometimes. By the way, how is the weather in your area? I hear it might snow soon. Green Giant (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Mounties cat

Hi. Didn't mean to step on toes, deleting the redirect; but we've always sought to avoid category redirects. My own experience has been that they cause no end of trouble; and I guess I was encouraged in that attitude when I discovered it was shared by our past technical guru who created most of our older generation of site automation tools (notably easy-peer-review and make-lead). --Pi zero (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Yeah I was evaluating whether to request it be moved from CAT:RCMP to the full name but figured it was less work to redirect it. Could we move it to the full name? Green Giant (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I'm up to it tonight (after several late nights running). 31 articles isn't impossible, though. --Pi zero (talk) 00:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No rush, it wasn’t a priority. Theoretically, of course, I could do it myself but I’m hesitant to do so without sysop confirmation. Green Giant (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Bodies of water

It seems to me the regions are major blocks of the globe, while bodies of water are... something else. I feel we ought to be trying to unclutter Category:News articles by region, rather than adding little bits like the Caspian or Java Sea to it. Even making the Pacific Ocean a region feels wrong to me, as I understand regions to be trying to neatly partition the globe, but the Pacific clearly overlaps with Oceania. Methinks we want a better solution. --Pi zero (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I suppose...would you keep it to just:

the continents - CAT:Africa‎, CAT:Antarctica‎, CAT:Asia‎, CAT:Europe, ‎CAT:North America‎, CAT:Oceania‎, and CAT:South America‎;

major intercontinental or cultural regions - CAT:Caribbean‎, CAT:Central America‎, and CAT:Middle East‎;

other significant "regions" - CAT:Oceans and CAT:Space‎;

I was thinking of a CAT:Seas, for the bodies of water that are geographically distinct e.g. CAT:Caspian Sea (not part of any ocean), CAT:Mediterranean Sea, and CAT:Baltic Sea. Alternatively, perhaps CAT:Oceans could be renamed to CAT:Bodies of water as a catch-all category?

The category that stands out is CAT:World, which isn't a region but doesn't seem to fit elsewhere. I'm not sure why we have such a category. Green Giant (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts.

• My understanding is that, although several of the regions are named after continents, they aren't really quite the continents as such. For example, the continent Asia includes most (or is that, all?) of the region Middle East. The Carribean is (I gather you'd noticed) grouped in region North America.
• The Caspian Sea, although clearly in the continent of Asia, straddles the boundary between regions Asia and Middle East. There are a few countries that do this, too. (Egypt straddles Africa and the Middle East, or so I've construed although perhaps that's just ambiguity about which region it belongs in; Turkey straddles Europe and Asia; Azerbaijan straddles Europe and Asia; and honestly Russia ought to except that would entail an awful lot of recategorization work in the archives.) Those countries, though, are not listed directly under Category:News articles by region, so I think the Caspian oughtn't be either.
• It might indeed be useful to have a bodies-of-water category; though Oceans seems like a useful grouping in its own right. So far, the right answer on this has't leapt out at me.
• Category World has been a thorn in our side for years. There is disagreement about what ought to go in it. I have tried to remove things from it whenever it felt justifiable to me, though on rare occasions I've found myself adding something to it. I remember once expressing my frustration with it to BRS, and suggesting a possible way of breaking it up into about two other categories neither of which would be called "World", only to discover that BRS's thinking on the matter was significantly different from mine.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

under review

Btw, there's no need to remove the {{review}} template when reviewing an article; I generally add the {{under review}} template before the {{review}} one, and the review gadget knows to remove both templates when applying a review to the page. (It's got a list, somewhere, of templates to remove from the page, and the template-name "under review" is on the list.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Don’t remove {{review}} if you are {|tl|reviewing}} an article. {{votings}} show number of articles to review and under review. Those numbers are not to be added.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that but I'll bear it in mind for the future. Green Giant (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian poet Alexander Byvshev convicted for 2015 poem about Ukraine

I and acagastya disagree over what to call the social media platform — VKontakte or vk.com. All the sources call it the first, we've called it the second in one or two previous articles. I decided during review to run with VKontakte, but acagastya had submitted vk.com, and has changed it back twice, which suggests feeling rather strongly about it. Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The URL is "vk.com", login page title says "Login | VK", the logo reads "VK", company info says "VK", the coding competition is called VK cup, there is no mention of "VKontakte" on the about page, in history, we have used "vk.com" in past. I see no reason to go against "vk.com" or even "vk" (that is ambiguous, but since "Russian social media" is mentioned, it should not be ambiguous) or even requiring another set of eyeballs.
•–• 07:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Besides, VKontakte is the Romanised version of ВКонта́кте, which means something in Russian, hence, requires a translation note considering how the party name in this article had. I have been using Vk for years, and I still don't know how to say or spell Vkontakte as the rebranding changed the full name to Vk. Regarding the brand name, we say "DFB-Pokal", and not "Deutscher Fußball-Bund-Pokal". We don't even mention its translation: "German Football Association". The question arises, why did we give the full form with translation for that Austrian party: it is because it was directly related to focus. DFB, in a game has no role deciding who comes out as winner.
•–• 07:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: and Acagastya I've also seen it being abbreviated to VK, so I would go with "VKontakte (VK)" to avoid any ambiguity, even though the site isn't mentioned again in the article. I wouldn't say either usage is wrong but for clarity it is better to use the full form with the abbr. in brackets straight after. I wouldn't support using "VK.com" or "vk.com" unless it was being listed in the sources. We can't assume that non-Russian readers will know what VK or VK.com means by the way, even if it says "Russian website" before it. The same would apply to the other major Russian social media site Odnoklassniki, which is often abbreviated to "OK.ru" but OK could mean a number of things. On the flip side it wouldn't make sense to use FB instead of Facebook, even though apparently more than a billion people use that network and would understand FB. Regarding DFB-Pokal, note that it is used in English much the same as Bundesliga or Bayern Munich are used without translation. As for Austria, I assume you're referring to the Freedom Party, which is known as that in English (at least in British English). Green Giant (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a good solution. --Gryllida (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is the thing: it is not an abbreviation. It’s website does not mention the longer name. It says “VK”. It was called as “Vkontatke”. It has been rebranded — go to the website and check it.
223.237.225.41 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I checked the website earlier. VK is a rebranding exercise, similar to those carried out by many companies looking to refresh their products. The service is still called VKontakte in section 4 of the Terms of Use and the first paragraph of the Privacy Policy, which are less likely to be visited by users. Green Giant (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
read the first line again: "Vk.com privacy policy", "Vk terms of service" -- details about the name is expected to be in About page, but now that you have mentioned ToS, this is what it says: "Welcome to the VK site [..] VK site (vk.com) (herein after – the Site) [...]" -- It has no mention of "VKontakte", as how it appears in sources. It does say "V Kontakte". So if the sources has freedom to change the display per their wish, let me use "VK", the way it is mentioned in the about page, and every other page (read the title of any page).
•–• 13:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

As I noted above, read section 4 of the Terms, which says who the site administration is i.e. V Kontakte. Read the privacy policy and it says VKontakte in the text. I understand your point about VK being written at the top of pages but that is precisely the point of a rebranding exercise. Green Giant (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Besides, the reason DFB pokal is not translatd is because if MSM decides to cover is, they call it "German Cup" and if sports website mentions it, that is because their target audience knows what it is. Also, the German name of FC Bayern Munich is FC Bayern München.
•–• 13:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have sent you a mail

Also, I think the style of your talk is not working correctly; maybe you should try with `min-height`.
•–• 10:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I think adding ``min-height: 350px`` to the style of div ``border: 2px solid #000;padding: .5em 1em 1em 1em;border-top: none;background-color: #D3D3D3;color: black;zoom: 1;`` would work.
•–• 11:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Main space redirects

Don’t create main space redirects to category if the category is empty — it leads readers to an empty page, making Wikinews look “ugly”. Leave a list of redirects to be created in category talk.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The category will be filled soon and I was being prudent. Ugliness maybe your view but I see it as a work in progress. There is no point in leaving it all to be done by the admin that attends to the fill request. Green Giant (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

We do prefer not to create redirects until the category has been populated; to create a redirect to an empty page, which then automatically diverts wikilinks from every article in our archives that refers to the name of the redirect, is a disservice to our readers. --Pi zero (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

At any rate, if the redirects in question are the ones for the NSA, I did the requested populating, set up {{topic cat}}, and protected and categorized the two redirect pages. If there are other similar cases floating around, we might want to temporarily delete the redirects until we can get around to populating the categories. --Pi zero (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I used double quotes is because I was told the same thing three years ago.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I will bear both your comments in mind but to be fair, it was an empty category for almost a year, which isn't useful either. Green Giant (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess you are missing the point -- main space redirects is a problem -- that is because a keyword, let's take an example of "Allahabad high court" -- it might be used in various articles without having a category, or with an empty category. It might be linked to Wikipedia using {{W}} template. And it is impossible for any reader to land on its category page from the articles in main space. But the way {{W}} works, if you create the main space page for the high court, and redirect it to an empty category, the reader, who clicks on the link will see an empty category, something we don't want.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

To put it another way, an empty category isn't, in itself, a significant problem, because its existence does not have any effect on most readers; but the moment there is a redirect to it from a name that is used by an article using {{w}}, that is a significant problem. Our usual response, historically, would be to delete the category under speedy criterion 'empty category' and then delete the redirects under speedy criterion 'redirect to a non-existent page'; but as along as the redirects don't exist, we can just let the category stand empty with little harm done — provided there's a {{fill this category}} template on the talk page so we don't lose track of it. --Pi zero (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point, but I was clarifying what I did (which I expect is why you raised the matter). Just so it’s clear, I haven’t made any other redirects to empty categories. Green Giant (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Edited comment

I am glad you caught that. That was quite underhanded. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd interpreted it as a mistake; weird stuff happens sometimes when editing. (I forget why I didn't undo it; distracted at just the wrong moment by something off-line, maybe.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: It was probably a genuine error i.e. accidental cut-&-paste instead of copy-&-paste. Always best to "assume good faith" wherever possible. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we have Never assume.
•–• 10:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Irrespective of what the essay suggests, I will not assume malicious intent on the part of established users unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. Green Giant (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it says do not assume -- neither good faith, not malicious intent.
•–• 11:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's an essay, not a policy or guideline. I don't have to follow any of the opinions contained therein. Green Giant (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A large part of the documentation of important principles on Wikinews (and Wikibooks) is in the form of essays. Even the style guide is technically a guideline. Never assume is a very big deal here, and something that was practiced by the hard-news faction for years before it was finally written down (back when there was a non-hard-news faction, before it destroyed itself by creating a fork that failed). --Pi zero (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not against following guidelines where they make sense. I'm not sure why my assumption of the IP's intention is being interpreted in this rather unconstructive way. Should I have reacted angrily at their editing of my comment and accused them of malicious intent? Like I said earlier, the IP probably did a cut&paste when they should have done a copy&paste. I readded the template link to fix the comment. I chose not to see the removal as a slight. That should have been the end of the matter, unless the IP user wants to shed some hitherto unforeseen light on the purpose of their edit. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation was being questioned; just some peripheral remarks about the desirability of not thinking of it in terms of assuming anything, one way or another, as a Wikinewsie ought not to assume. It's a journalist-mindset thing. --Pi zero (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you write about "Deadliest Gaza protests in years"?

An important story, but I would not be able to write about it because of college exams. This is something we should not miss.
•–• 18:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideally, when Eurovision, this article and the third one, which I will start in a few minutes about Dublin mayor speaking about boycotting Eurovision 2019, they all will be interconnected. I hope you would mention about the embassy controversy. (Note for reviewers) Make sure this article is published before Dublin for the flow I have been thinking.
•–• 22:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

If possible, please submit it for review before you go to afk.
•–• 00:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Done 55 dead in Israel-Gaza border clashes. Green Giant (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sighting pages

Reminder: never sight an unpublished page in mainspace. --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ack! I'll bear it in mind. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sudanese teenager sentenced to death for killing husband while raping her

Hi. If you have time could you review and sight (or reject) the revisions on this article? All other active reviewers are involved in the edit history. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Done and thread started on the talkpage. Green Giant (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is an issue again. Thanks, --SVTCobra 19:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your availability

• Netta wins Eurovision Song Contest for Israel

I need to add a table for Eurovision article -- that will require help of 25 YouTube videos. Pi zero reported YouTube said the video was not available in the country -- that means it would be better if a reviewer from Europe could verify it. It is a tedious task, but has to be done. (I have also pinged Tom Morris off-wiki) but when can I expect you to be available on-wiki so that I can explain you how to verify (because it is not straightforward.)?
•–• 02:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you free right now so that we can tackle the problem asap?
•–• 08:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m free right now. I was just looking through the article. What do you need me to do? Green Giant (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind joining #wikinewsie-group on freenode IRC so that I can tell you in real time (because it requires discussion and talk page might not be that isntant)?
•–• 08:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ten minutes. Well, I have added the table.
•–• 09:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Template on every page for admins (opt-in)

{{Testing}} currently contains the "admin dashboard" what I had in my mind. Admins can find all [atm; some of] the handy links. So is it possible to make it appear on every page on enwn, anywhere -- top or bottom -- which is opt-in for the admins?
•–• 13:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, did you get my email?
•–• 13:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be possible but I don’t remember which pages have to be changed to achieve it. I’ve received your email and will reply soon (I’m just sorting through earlier requests). Green Giant (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Great! That means it is now up to Pi zero and SVTCobra (for time being, and then for you, once we reach to a conclusion in favour for your adminship) to utilise it. Do you think we can add more features to it?
•–• 13:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If there were a magic word for determining the current user's privs, I think this could then be put on the navigation bar. However, I don't think there is such a magic word. There's a magic word (I think) for determining the protections on a page, but not the privs of the current user. (As I recall, I had this shortcoming of magic words in mind when I added the capability to the dialog tools. So the dialog tools can be made to behave differently depending on the user's privs.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Another email.
•–• 14:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

thanks for moving the page

Just had realised the mistake before saving {{topic cat}} data. Otherwise would have to make a formal request and wait for quite some time.
•–• 08:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you think you can review a Crime and law article tonight (so that I write it right now)?

•–• 19:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, can you review any of these (1 or 2)?

I’ve reviewed the Ancelotti one. If you write the crime/one I’d prefer to review that. Green Giant (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, resubmited. Give me some time, I am working on two crime and law articles. Let's hope you ca get both of them reviewed.
•–• 22:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. I’ll be around for the next three hours or so. If I don’t respond quickly it will be because I’m working on something non-Wiki. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Then my speed would be the bottleneck -- let me try my best.
•–• 22:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

What’s the deadline? I can stick around a bit longer if necessary. It will be Saturday, and for once I won’t be working at the weekend (the early hours don’t count). Green Giant (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I am working on relatively fresh stories, so not something that would lose freshness in an hour, but there are a lo of things to write, and sooner we get those done, the better. Also, could you tell me when will the official result of the Irish referendum be declared? Need to write about it, but not sure if exit polls are newsworthy. Also, if you have time to review, now, go ahead with this AB de Villiers article. I hope that would not have any issues.
•–• 22:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am almost done writing the article, and need to type it now. if you want to read the sources in the meanwhile, here are those 1 2 3.
•–• 23:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be some issue with my keyboard -- some of the keys do not detect the press, or maybe it is because of my nails -- mom told me that they will cause trouble while typing. :-/
•–• 00:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is late for you, and even I did not sleep at night -- and there are a lot of articles to write:

1. Pakistan (Crime and law)
2. Canada explosion injures fifteen (Crime and law)
3. Apple, Inc vs Samsung (Crime and law)
4. Irish referendum (Crime and law)
5. Indian Unifrom Civil Code (Crime and law)

Do you think you would be able to tackle at least a couple of them in the morning -- provided I write those before you wake up. Hopefully.
•–• 03:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will review crime and law more happily than sports articles. Don’t lose sleep over them though. Green Giant (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, if you are using mutterIRC, I would suggest using IRCCloud (if you agree to their privacy policy) which would let us be online even if the app is closed in the background. I really sould sleep for three hours, but then it would be afternoon. Argh, I have so much to write and so less time.
•–• 03:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I’ll download IRCCloud when I wake up. Better to get some sleep and write better articles than to not sleep and write badly. By the way I believe four hours is the minimum time needs for effective sleep for most people. It takes that long for your body to drop through the four stages of sleep (Alpha to Delta), but not the last stage let’s your body recover properly. I’d say three hours is not enough. Green Giant (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
BTW, if you have energy to review another article, this Crime and law article awaits review. However, you have already reviewed two articles tonight and it is very late -- we all should be sleeping.
•–• 03:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Later today certainly but after sleep. Green Giant (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

License clarification

I created this graph using a GeoJSON file under CC BY 4.0. However, it way created using HighCharts, and from what I know, the software itself is free for personal or non-commercial use. So there are two questions -- first, will the licence of GeoJSON file affect the licence of the output graph? GeoJSON is responsible for the map's shape, so I think yes it affects. Second, will the software licence affect the licencing? Because, I used it for my codepen 'pen' which was non-commercial, and later I used the output, something that I had created, for Wikinews. Can you please confirm that those are the terms of HighCharts, and what would be the ideal, most open licence for that file? -- CC BY content can be re-licenced to a more restrictive "free" licence.
•–• 10:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Interesting mix of licenses.

The Highcharts license states that "Licensee shall also retain the ownership to all data sets and charts Licensee make by using Highcharts Cloud." As far as Highcharts is concerned, you are the copyright holder of the work you create using their software. Done

The CodePen Terms specify that any output created by you and placed in a public pen, will be licensed under the MIT License. Anyone can reuse that code for any purpose but so can you. The MIT license is one of the freest and is quite compatible with other licenses. However, you as the copyright holder are not obliged to utilise the MIT license if you are reusing your own work. Done

The Data.Gov.IE license effectively uses CC-BY-4.0, which means you have to credit the source website. It would be easiest to dual-license the file with {{cc-by-2.0}} and {{cc-by-4.0}} to ensure you cover all angles. Done

In summary, yes to question 1, and no to question 2. Please remember to add an {{Image info}} to the file page. Green Giant (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, there was a lot of off-wiki drama -- I was working on one laptop, then shifting to another due to internet -- and codepen is just one of the websites that I had used for testing purpose (I had used JSfiddle for showing others the work) -- and even the final svg output was edited (which, by the way, was not downloaded from codepen, the initial version was). That said, I am not a fan of dual licencing and will be going with CC BY 4.0. I will be updating the file info, and transferring to Commons shortly. Thank you for clarifying the case.
•–• 13:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I assumed you were going to keep the file on WN (my mistake: it should have been 2.5, not 2.0). For Commons, 4.0 is ideal. Green Giant (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the article will be using the media uploaded locally, and I am not sure why you would call it "ideal" -- the basic idea is to use any of the free licence, and I would prefer BSD-like licence. BTW< do you think you could manage a crime and law article which is on the last day of freshness?
•–• 14:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ideal because Commons prefers the latest versions of licenses, which CC BY 4.0 is. I can try reviewing but I might be distracted by non-wiki work; which article? Green Giant (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you confirm if this file is suitable to be on Commons? The EXIF data seems to be fine, the watermark suggests otherwise -- I am cropping it for time being. BTW, Pakistan related article, yet to transfer from my journal to on-wiki, give me some time, I will do it.
•–• 14:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The file looks to be correctly licensed. Although the photographers own website uses an -NC license, he has uploaded many photos under CC-BY-2.0 on Flickr. Are you thinking of using it in an article? Green Giant (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have added it to the Irish article, and pizero is sighting those edits right now. The article which I am typing -- I think I will submit it in 30 minutes.
•–• 16:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

your availability

We have under six hours, and one article about Pakistan's crime and law, which I am writing right now is on the last day. Just wanted to know, would you be available for a review tonight? In case you want the links to sources:

1. https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/05/27/kp-assembly-premises-becomes-battleground-ahead-of-fata-merger-bills-approval/
2. https://nation.com.pk/28-May-2018/kp-assembly-clears-fata-merger-bill
3. https://apnews.com/f5910c4403234010ac8f0d555548e743
4. http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/pak-s-khyber-pakhtunkhwa-assembly-passes-landmark-bill-to-merge-fata-with-province-118052700534_1.html
5. https://tribune.com.pk/story/1720762/1-k-p-assembly-dissolve-may-29/

•–• 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I should be free in about an hour. I will read these sources soon and come onto IRC then if necessary. Green Giant (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Just under 6KB, it is ready for review. Note that Pakistan Today has a typo -- instead of saying "article 239 (4)", they wrote "Article 139 (4)" -- and in the previous article, we had the information about the article, and I have also cited Pakistan's Constitution, and actually, Article 139 has only three sub-clauses. Note that the third paragraph and the least line of the article are copied from the previous article, mentioned in the related news.
•–• 19:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I just made a quick copyedit (hope I didn't slip up anywhere); can't review atm, but hoped it might help streamline things a bit. --Pi zero (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bible of DisuseKid

Oops; thanks for flagging that out for me. I really thought I'd nuked that; but the recent downgrading of the nuke interface encourages failure to complete the action. --Pi zero (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: No problem. It’s always better to have a second set of eyeballs lurking around. Green Giant (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Portal redirects

I am, of course, aware of the extensive valuable work you've been doing lately on our portals and categories. Just a passing thought. A bunch of those portals are targeted by redirects from mainspace. In theory, of course, mainspace redirects are all protected (insert RFP complications here). However, the process of actually implementing those protections is yet another project that's been too big to do all at once so we've been very slowly nibbling at it, and most of those redirects are, in fact, not yet protected; in fact, when protecting a mainspace redirect to a portal we'd pretty surely have retargeted it to the corresponding category at the same time, so any mainspace redirect that targets a portal is probably unprotected. --Pi zero (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...I wasn't aware of this, although I should have guessed that such redirects existed. I will review the portals in Category:Redirected obsolete portals and fix accordingly. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There's Special:DoubleRedirects. --Pi zero (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ireland votes to overturn 8th amendment, removing abortion ban

I backed off on this move. --Pi zero (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I may have misread Darkfrog24's comment about moving it. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Really can’t log in at the moment, so…

Do you think you can review at least two articles every day for the next seven weeks? If you are comfortable sharing, email me your weekly schedule, at what time can you possibly review articles, and also at what type of articles would you prefer. There will be one FWC18 article every day, so I guess it has to be “something which isn’t sports article”. Well don’t send a Wiki mail. You know my private email, The one you had sent podcasts to. I would tell you my schedule; and I am ready to submit articles at the time which is suitable for you. If we get everything all right, it would be great; let us make best use of summer.
223.237.220.227 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've sent you an email about this. Green Giant (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Nuke not working correctly

Are you — technically speaking — able to use Special:Nuke on en.wn? If so, please try to Special:Nuke/Dom Erineu Bless II and tell me whether it works. Because I have done this about a dozen times in the half hour, and it leaves the pages still there. I'd convinced myself the reason pages were sometimes still there after I'd tried to nuke them was some sort of statistically-likely typo, but that's clearly not the case since the software has actually told me it deleted those pages many times over this half hour. --Pi zero (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I tried and it shows the same thing. I note that the files themselves were renamed. Are you able to delete them individually? It might be worth reporting this on Phabricator because it seems like a glitch. Green Giant (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's very clearly a... glitch. (It seems to me that software "updates" are routinely deployed with de-facto-inadequate testing.) It's quite clear what's happening, up to a point: Special:Nuke is using an outdated list of names. Consequently, RecentChanges shows repeated deletion of the pages under their old names, from before they were renamed-without-leaving-a-redirect. It's even conceivable that the software is especially confused because those renames-without-redirect were done by a steward (it wouldn't be the first time I'd heard of software making life pointlessly more difficult for users with more privs).

Yes, I just had no problem individually deleting the one file by user SN HBE (I chose that one to avoid corrupting the two-file user case).

However, I have no voice on phabricator; I've tried, in the past, to set up an account there, but the software told me in order to do so I would have to give some sort of over-powered permission to use my private information, which I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw it and no way was I going to do. --Pi zero (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: If by "over-powered permission" you mean OAuth, I’m not sure what private information it takes other than the on-wiki information like account name and email address. In the past I have received email notifications every time someone commented on one of the tasks I created.

Anyway, I have created a task on Phabricator (T196831) with the details from here and included @Teles:. Green Giant (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Btw, we have proof that the problem still exists, fwiw: today, Teles again renamed two files and Special:Nuke then couldn't find them. (This time I disposed of the files, by setting up individual deletion windows for the renamed files and pasting in the deletion message from Special:Nuke.) One of these times, if I think of it, I'll try renaming a file myself, to see whether Special:Nuke gets confused in the same way. --Pi zero (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Did try it; Special:Nuke got confused just the same. --Pi zero (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... so it seems to be a problem with renamed files. I don't think I ever came across this problem on Commons. Next time there's an upload I'll try renaming it if you don't get to it first. Green Giant (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay.

I've noticed the user's Special:Contributions correctly lists the renamed files; evidently Special:Nuke is getting its list from somewhere else. --Pi zero (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I suspect you are correct. I'm not a coder but the best I can find is that it might be something to do with NukeGetNewPages. See this Gerrit page for more. I've also asked on MediaWiki, but I wasn't sure if you got the ping because I still do not fully understand the capabilities of Flow. Green Giant (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Flow is an abomination. But as it happens, I did get the ping. I'm afraid to try to add it to my watch list, lest I never be able to get it off again till the end of time, or some other equally ghastly consequence due to the insanity of Flow, but I did get the ping. --Pi zero (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I just tried the rename trick on one of a set of mainspace pages. The behavior was almost the same: Special:Nuke failed to delete the renamed file, but this time it reported that it couldn't delete it, rather than generating a deletion-log entry claiming to have deleted the page under the old name. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

US-NK article

The article has serious issues with the arrangement of content, not following the inverted pyramid structure. Though it is important to establish the background information, the article should have the entire background information dumped at the beginning -- that is what the paragraph does. Besides, the article should avoid listing bullet points and instead, describe the points within the article -- something that we did for KP-FATA merger bill. Could you review that, because I can not review without getting too involved with the article. :-/
•–• 07:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I will try to review it later today. Green Giant (talk) 10:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Crime and law + politics and conflicts article

I would hope to put an article on-wiki after four and half hours -- I hope you can get it done today.
•–• 00:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Did not go as planned. But do you think you can get to it after 8 PM your time -- assuming it is UTC+0100.
•–• 19:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Yes, I should be able to. Green Giant (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

in that case, @Pi zero:, I think you should work on the match report. But it is very important that we get this UN article done today, Green Giant. (I wonder why "Giant". /me laughs thinking about "Blood Red Sandman" picturising it -- is it a Marvel pun, "Sandman" and "Green Giant", I wonder)
•–• 19:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Will do. Acagastya, if it helps, this is the fictional creature that some people believe my username refers to —>

That may or may not be the truth but only I know for sure. :) —Green Giant (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
darn it -- I subtracted, instead of adding an hour -- give me about 45 minutes.
•–• 20:02, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I’m already reading some of the sources. Green Giant (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

LOL, they are going to change.
•–• 20:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, it’s giving me some background. Green Giant (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Most of the information whcich I used for rewriting the article is from the first four sources.
•–• 21:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Re the template to show on every page

Can you tell me how to do that? At the bottom of every page. Like this (See the {{testing}} at the bottom?)
•–• 06:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I know you've asked me a similar question previously. If you want it at the top of most pages, you would need to modify the MediaWiki:Sitenotice page. If you want it at the foot of most pages, I guess that you could modify the MediaWiki:Copyright page, but that might not be a popular change. For both these pages you need admin powers and consensus to change those pages. If you are able to view either page, you should see it has the same text as you see at the top or foot of most pages. Beyond that I couldn't tell you because I'm not a coder. Green Giant (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

that would change it for everyone. That is not what I want. However, I think I have thought how I could use it. Still would require someone's help to change copyright page.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks tricky. I tried this on my local wiki -- this is what I did: {{#ifexist: User:{{#USERNAME:}}/footerTemplate | {{User:{{#USERNAME:}}/footerTemplate}} | }}. And it works perfectly how I want it to work. Only if we had "Extension:GetUserName" enabled. (CC @Gryllida: maybe that could make our task easier without having a need to use scripts -- well, in your case, regarding recent changes you could just dump {{Special:RecentChanges}}(at the bottom of [[Mediawiki:Cpoyright}} and preview the output. Don't save it, else it will affect everyone.) Now all I need is that extension to be installed.
•–• 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Harder than that. It is decomposing every single wikilink, so "{{ping|CherryBubbles}}" produces "@[[User:CherryBubbles|CherryBubbles]]:"
•–• 07:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: The arrangement you describe, where it looks for User:{{#USERNAME:}}/footerTemplate, seems less than ideal because anyone could create such a template. If only the user themself or an admin could activate the feature, that would seem ideal. If only an admin could activate it, that would seem less ideal but likely still better than allowing just anyone to.

All this is closely related to what I want to do with the dialog-based feature I should be working on now, a device to provide context-sensitive information to templates. --Pi zero (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Pi zero: I knew you would say that, but I don't know why you would want to prevent that, it does not affect everyone after all.
•–• 12:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Article suggestion

I will be working on Colombia's election and Japan's earthquake articles. But could you suggest me some articles (as many as you can) to write about? Don't worry about finding the sources, just tell me about the story, I will see what I can do. We need to bring back the lead section to only one football story, so I need to write at least three more stories (excluding the two mentioned above).
•–• 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I guess you could write about some of the following non-football news:

• Donald Trump has proposed a new US Starfleet (or Space Force in his words);
• The former Israeli minister who apparently spied for Iran - he has been charged today I think;
• The World Health Organization has recognised "gaming addiction" as a "mental health condition";
• The unfortunate death of some immigrants during a chase by US border guards in Texas;
• The Saudi-led assault on the Yemeni port of Hodeida;
• The arrest of the Audi CEO as an extension of the Volkswagen emissions scandal;
• There has been a major fire in a Nigerian market;
• In Nigeria, a traditional ruler was killed in Enugu, and there have been some arrests;
• In the UK, there is an ongoing trial of alleged members of a banned neo-Nazi group;
• In Iran, a Sufi man has been executed for a bus incident that killed security personnel;
• There is a battle going on in a Libyan oil region involving the warlord Haftar;
• The Taliban have restarted fighting after an Eid ceasefire;
• The king of Thailand has gained control of a $30 billion fortune that was administered by a government agency for much of the previous 80 years;
• There is instability in the stock markets, especially in Asia as a result of the tariff battle between the US and China (I note that Pres. Trump has just asked the US Trade Rep. to look at adding billions of dollars of tariffs on Chinese goods);
• A UK regulator has sharply criticised KPMG for poor audit work done for some major companies;
• Google has announced it will buy a big chunk of shares in JD.com, a major Chinese online retailer;
• Amazon.com is going to create a thousand new jobs in Ireland;

• Linked to that, Amazon owner Jeff Bezos has been declared the richest man in the world by Forbes;

Hopefully that will be enough to keep you going for a couple of days but I'll have a look for more potential articles tomorrow evening if I can. Green Giant (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

regarding how you review

I have noted multiple times that you replace {{Review}} with {{Under review}} and I am curious -- why do you do it? I always wanted to ask you, but never got time to. The reason I can think of is that it prevents accidental publishing -- one can not review an article which is not marked for review.
•–• 19:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't done that for a while now but in the past I did it for that very reason. I think it was you who pointed it out in April. Green Giant (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Never got to ask you. But since it was in my head today, I asked.
•–• 21:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No harm in asking. :) —Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I really wish I was not sleepy right now. Spent 3/4th of the day on my local wiki, and missed out writing so many things. Any chance you would be able to review some politics-related articles tomorrow, UTC? And if yes, when do you expect me to submit the articles?
•–• 21:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I should be able to review some tomorrow. I prefer not to put a deadline, so just finish them when you can and let me know. This time I’ll try to be on IRC too. —Green Giant (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
looks like pi will be afk today. So I think you really should join IRC, ping me when you join, and we will start working together.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

<checking in> Though likely very busy today, I'm not completely afk. <thinks of Miracle Max distinguishing between completely dead and mostly dead> --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I should be free in the next hour or so (waiting for my computer to install updates). Green Giant (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Will try to submit the election article in 90 minutes.
•–• 16:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ping me when that article is publisshed -- I will share the sources for this Colombia article. By the way, it is one the last day.
•–• 17:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

See this.
•–• 17:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I wonder if you can manage three more reviews tomorrow? I hope I don't sleep too much today, and I will try not to spend time on my pyWiki bot.
•–• 01:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can try three more tomorrow but it will have to be in the afternoon, from about 1700 UK time. Green Giant (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Re Canadian PM announcing date of legalisation of cannabis

It is on the last day, and we had a story about it, last year (see this). I don't plan to write about it right now, I would write about seven hours before UTC date changes. Any changes you could review it? Possible sources are 1, 2, 3.
12:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. I’m going to be in the office for about four hours. Green Giant (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I have started writing, however, there is another article on RQ which will lose its freshness. Any chance you can manage that, too?
•–• 19:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

FUR

I hope you can think of a FU rationale for this once I write the article. The hand gestures -- that caused the controversy.
•–• 22:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me the question is whether the copyright holder is a news org. As I understand our FU policy, that's key. --Pi zero (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Possibly but we would have to really think it through. The problem here is that I think it is safe to assume there would have been quite literally dozens of cameras pointing at them, so it is difficult to say exactly who took these two exact shots. I might be wrong but I believe the photographer is Clive Rose - see this photo and that one. He appears to be a freelance photographer, so I don't know if that factors into our fair use policy. Green Giant (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

RQ

I really hope you complete one article now, and one when you wake up -- with non-decreasing RQ, I lose motivation to cover more. And there are five more articles to write. So things really need to move quickly as we can't wait for the last moment, as we say, the Canadian article, which took significant time writing lost its freshness as we kept it for the last fucking minute. We are failing at the basic level of doing things ASAP.
•–• 00:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Articles for today -- a contract extension, Dutch Senate voting for Burqa Ban, possibly US court dismissing travel ban. Any chance you can get into review mode in 30 minutes? The contract extension would not take much time.
•–• 14:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just finished work. I will try to review at least two articles. Green Giant (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Note re comments pages

It used to be that, when we moved a published article, the comments page would be automatically moved with it. You could tell that the javascript to do this was working, because a message would pop up telling you that it had done it. The message still pops up telling you that it has done it, but now it's not true. It doesn't move it automatically, There is also a place on the page for you to click to do the move manually, and you have to do that, even though you've been told it was taken care of automatically, because it hasn't been taken care of automatically.

I moved the comments page of the plastics-ban article for you. --Pi zero (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Cheers. I will bear that in mind for the future. Green Giant (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

How would I...

The situation is: I created a logo and another person digitalised it. One becomes a co-author when they digitalise a photo right? In that case, how to add multiple authors for the photo upload? Will it fall under "it is my work"? Last, but not the least -- we had agreed to release it under CC0 1.0. I assume if this is the case of multiple authors, they would have to mail the OTRS. Can you provide a link to a sample mail?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if the second person puts some effort into digitalisation, then they become a co-author. On Commons it is preferable to name all authors but it can be difficult to do so in the upload wizard. I would recommend uploading with just one author and then manually add the name of the second one. Send the email after you’ve uploaded the file. For a sample email, have a look at c:COM:ET and use the license release generator linked from that page. Once you’ve done that, tag the file with c:Template:OP but make sure you subst it. Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Will ask her to. I suppose you would not be up for a review in, say 30 minutes? Or will you?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Photos from Helsinki Pride

Upon my request, a person took photos of Helsinki Pride for a photo essay. I would be uploading them to Commons shortly. I have asked them to send an OTRS email. So, how do I create the email for ORTS for the bunch of photos? Also, how long that process is? Can you quickly verify it? We can not afford to have a {{missing image}} for photo essays.
•–• 14:52, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

ticket:2018063010004351 is the number.
•–• 17:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems the ticket and files have been checked by Steinsplitter. :) Green Giant (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Abuse filter 4

There was much trouble here earlier today (which I missed as it was during my sleep cycle) because this filter suddenly rose up and revoked the autoconfirmed status of acagastya. (Eventually I see acagastya's privs were fixed by bawolff.) I've been looking into this; our first four filters were created by Cirt in 2009, they all involve revoking the perpetrator's autoconfirmed status, and none of them were ever very successful; the first three have only been triggered 0–3 times each, and while filter 4 has been triggered 46 times, it looks to me as if all but maybe one or two of those would have to be considered false positives. However, I can't modify that filter because, apparently, as a mere 'crat I don't have sufficient privs. I think maybe the removal of autoconfirm puts those four filters (and about three others) beyond my reach — Cirt was, I think, a checkuser at the time which presumably was sufficient unto the purpose.

I'm thinking we really should just disable that filter; I can think of ways to curb it, but really, I don't think it serves any purpose. Can you disable it for us (both "can you" technically and in the sense of propriety), or do we need to ask someone else and/or through some more formal process? --Pi zero (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Apologies for the delayed response but yes I can and have disabled it. I couldn’t have done it on my own volition but you making a request as a crat or sysop is the only formal process needed. I might be wrong but I don’t think there is a place to make such requests (the nearest I could think of is m:SRM but that’s for when there are no active sysops). Pinging @Acagastya: and @Gryllida: for propriety. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You couldn't touch that filter because autoconfirmed-disabling is 'abusefilter-restricted' permissions, and m:SRM is the correct place because nobody in the local can do it. (and request from admin/crat should be fine imo for validity) — revi^☏ 07:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Re your availability

I guess we would need your presence on-wiki for a review.
•–• 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I should be free in about an hour or so. —Green Giant (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, well, then I can work on Dublin Pride article tension-free.
•–• 16:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Starting in ten minutes.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I’ll be ready. Green Giant (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I need to add the photo gallery, but all that I had to type is typed. (Dublin Pride 2018 attracts tens of thousands of people).
•–• 19:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well, it is July 4. Pi is likely to be afk for quite some time. :-/
103.254.128.86 (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Soon to start with Sharapova article -- hopefully would not take much time. Helsinki pride after that.
•–• 14:24, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I will be free to review in about two hours. —Green Giant (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Might need 45 more minutes.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I’ll just have something to eat. Green Giant (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Darn it. Delayed due to internet issues, but well, I have asked pi to copyedit it. I have asked them, if Green Giant does not mark it under review in ten minutes, begin the review. So I hope there is no confusion -- this is the time to join IRC. Tennis should not take much time, so if pi begins the review, you would have tennis article.
•–• 21:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Acagastya: Just to let you know, I’m not going to be available for reviews until the weekend, probably Saturday afternoon at the earliest. Green Giant (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I am also afk until Sunday. (/me giggles) By the way, thank you for the talk page response on Commons.
•–• 16:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 ArbCom elections

I'd like to nominate you for ArbCom this year. Are you willing to accept nomination?
•–• 03:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Acagastya, thank you for the nomination. If elected, I'm not sure whether I would have the time to do this and the half-dozen other wiki-things I'm currently doing. I will let you know by Sunday when I have thought about it more thoroughly. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you decide?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The task of en.wn Arb consists mostly of being available to deal with the next ArbCom case to come along, and none come along. Keeping in mind that en.wn ArbCom is a judicial body, in contrast to ArbComs that can be rather more interventionist. But an en.wn Arb agrees to be able, on rather short notice, to make time for several days of intensive hearing of a case. --Pi zero (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Pi zero. @Acagastya: sorry I promised Sunday. Yes, I will accept the nomination. Green Giant (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

your availability

Are you there, on-wiki and do you think you would be able to review something (very) soon?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn’t online. Long sleep to make up for long hours at work. Green Giant (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, pizero was fortunately available at that time. Any chance you could review something tonight?
•–• 16:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Unfortunately I’m unlikely to be free until quite late this evening. If it’s something that needs to be reviewed before 1100 UTC, I’m probably not going to be able to do it. Green Giant (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Today? London Pride is on the last day.
•–• 20:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have some politics and conflicts, crime and law, and disasters and accidents related articles. Any chance you could review them by today?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can review a couple today. Green Giant (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
might have to deal with more than a couple, I am afriad.
•–• 09:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Going to cook some food, and write some articles. Some are on the last day :-/
•–• 13:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I am too sleepy to continue. I am really sorry. If I did not have exam tomorrow, I would have forced myself to write, but I really need to get some REM cycles.
•–• 15:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I’ll review what I can. Have a good sleep. Green Giant (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I feel so bad about breaking the promise and missing those articles.
•–• 15:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If you collapse from lack of sleep and need hospitalisation, you’ll feel even worse. Get some food and sleep; the news can wait! Green Giant (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well, I had the worst math exam ever. And the news went stale. (That was just for the record) Tomorrow, I will be travelling without internet for the entire day (June 16). After that, I need my daily average to be higher than three per day (for the next eight days). I will try my best, I hope you can also find some time for it. (CC'ing @Pi zero:) Though I could drag it to month-end, but I don't want to break the promise I made to my friend, and to myself.
103.254.128.86 (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Before coming online for review

would you mind pinging me on IRC, so I can prepare accordingly. Let's try to drag it and get as much as we can, without losing sanity.
•–• 12:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do tomorrow. —Green Giant (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Singer Aretha Franklin, 'queen of soul', dies aged 76

Submitted; if it's still there when you're next available, would greatly appreciate if you could review. (Sorry I didn't get it in at a more reasonable time; only heard about it at about 1800 UTC.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

ShakataGaNai reviewed it. It's not completely impossible I might write another article later today or early tomorrow. --Pi zero (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Ack, sorry I just wasn’t as free as I’d hoped. If you write another, I’ll try my best to review it. —Green Giant (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Fossil genome shows hybrid of two extinct species of human

I've submitted another. --Pi zero (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

off-wiki harassment

(CC @-revi:) This IP (Special:contributions/173.9.249.69) had added gibberish on a talk page (link). I had rollbacked it yesterday. But this morning, I received an email from someone called Michael Harris (mikeharriswdca@gmail.com) (yeah, I really do not mind sharing emails on spammers), which read "YO, U BETTER RV YOUR VANDALISM OR WE LL PUT U ON WIKIPEDOIDIOTS LIST" with a link to the difference which I had rollbacked. The creepiest part is: the email which they sent me that bullshit was the email which I had never used on-wiki. Is this not against CoC? (Using the alternate account, for who knows, just in case if they were monitoring other account.)
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 03:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Agastya,

What a shame. I guess they received a notification about reverting of their edit and responded to that, in a dishonourable and unprofessional manner.

Unless they continue harassment on-wiki, I doubt blocking them on-wiki would change anything.

In my personal opinion, you may wish to report it to Gmail and/or their ISP.

--Gryllida (chat) 11:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not that it concerns a local admin, (and is meant for stewards), the email was sent to the address I do not use for on-wiki purpose. There must be something in CoC against such incidents which also involves stalking.
•–• 21:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thought that the wiki CoC only pertains the on-wiki conduct? --Gryllida (chat) 00:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I've sent you an email about this to your alternate account. Green Giant (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sustainable grazing may have delayed Sahara desert onset by 500 years, study says

If by any chance you were able to review this in the time it has remaining, that surely would be appreciated. I really wanted to get this written and on the queue on Monday, when it was fresh-as-can-be. --Pi zero (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You are an OTRS member, right? \EOM

•–• 03:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi Green Giant,

Congratulations on joining the spam fighting and gadget writing squad. It is a really onerous process in some ways, and any help is appreciated. If you find ways to improve things, I am sure everyone would be willing to consider.

Seeing that you have not been editing last few weeks... I am not sure why (when leaving people rarely say why) but I really miss you. I hope to see you around whenever it is comfortable for you in your current environment.

Please add WN:AAA to your watch list.

If you have an account on the chat, you may wish to show up if you wish to get access to the IRC channel for Wikinews administrators (this needs a NickServ account).

(Thanks to User:Gray62 and Microchip08 and Bawolff for their effort towards closing the request.)

--Gryllida (chat) 03:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Your availability

Looks like before Dia de los muertos, we are going to have a crisis. Any chance you would be able to spare time for reviews tonight?
103.254.128.86 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

---

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →