Wikisource kept getting recreated by vandals, so I turned it into a protected soft redirect. Thoughts? Also, in Category:Review, there are two templates awaiting someone to sight them. One was edited by me and the other I think you are better qualified to check. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Protecting that page makes sense. The alternative is to delete it and protect it do only admins can create it. However, it is also linked from several pages including an article, which is fine. I’ve reviewed those two templates. [24Cr][talk] 21:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Horror film


Dear friend I have a request for you for the article horror film on Wikipedia can you restore the 2010s section and the 2020s section on there? (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Some sort of troll. Making the same request to multiple others. [24Cr][talk] 20:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply



There are a few items in Category:Speedy deletion which I thought I'd leave for you to evaluate. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder, those items are still sitting in speedy. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oops. Deleted (although probably should have been in DR I guess). Cheers. [24Cr][talk] 20:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
True, that. But DR has become a multi-year process and I didn't nominate these. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply



You unblocked without an on-wiki appeal. User seems to abuse the privilege. I have to delete the pages they created. Is there a back-story? --SVTCobra 00:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Specifically at Ltshivampandey which will be deleted by the time you see this. --SVTCobra 00:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
My mistake. They appeared to have appealed on their talk page. Their English isn’t great but I got the sense it was someone who didn’t understand that this isn’t Wikipedia. [24Cr][talk] 09:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

High numbers of unexplained Heptitis cases reported in very young children


Hi Cromium, Thank you for help you extended to me when this article was still in my user space. I did not know how to move the article into the newsroom other than by a copy& paste, which unfortunately does not maintain the contribution history, which I would have preferred. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ottawahitech: No problem. Thank you for starting this interesting article. I’ve merged your user-subpage into the main-space page. [24Cr][talk] 23:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for nominating JJLiu112 to be reviewer


Hi, in January this year I missed the nomination and discussion process. Completely appreciate your nomination and the help to them with the getting started. Thanks!!! --Gryllida (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

July 2022


I submitted an article for a review 3 days ago I don't know much about article writing though but I'm very concerned about the reviewers because article's stay for long without being reviewed I don't know if it's because the reviewers are inactive or it takes long for an article to be reviewed? Emkay2004 (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Emkay2004: Thank you for the article and sorry for the delay in reviewing. Unfortunately, it has passed it’s freshness. I’ve left a short review on the article talkpage. Sadly this wiki has been in decline for some time now. There are various reasons for this but primarily I think we are all short of spare time. Certainly I can barely devote more than a few minutes a day often. [24Cr][talk] 20:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I went to the best party ever...


...and you weren't there. You missed out on something awesome. The night life in Germany is amazing.-Late 1980s night lifer (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

2 New articles


Recently I put up the following two articles up for review:
I ask you to kindly review them, seeing as there is virtually no activity on enWN. And also, if you feel it appropriate, for the autochecked user group to be assigned to my account. MxYamato (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply



I started the SAPS article, just wondering if it's almost ready for a review? Thanks. Barty03 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Abuse filter


Hi, do you know why the phrase "my name is" is a disallowed phrase on user pages? See: Special:AbuseFilter/22 ... Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@SVTCobra: I believe it was included because it appeared to be part of the formula used by some spambots. Their user pages usually gave an introductory "hey, my name is…" followed by a location, a hobby and then a link to a commercial website (the latter being the real purpose of the Userpage). I’m guessing that User:BKMoqubane hit at least two of those requirements when they tried to create their Userpage. Since they seem to be a genuine person (most spambots don’t respond to the abuse filter), I’d suggest either creating the page for them or recommending they wait to become autoconfirmed in four or five days. [24Cr][talk] 19:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply



Hi. What do you make of these two users and their use of {{bots}}? User:梯隊快報 and User:悠遊卡. Cheers, SVTCobra 13:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Staleness change: temporary or permanent?


The trial is over, so would the change remain as-is or be reverted back to what it was before the trial? George Ho (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Inder Shergill


Could you also salt that, please? It's been recreated a few times now and is a title that will never need to be legitimately used. Heavy Water (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Normally I wait for a third creation because it confirms the situation. However, I agree with your reasoning here. [24Cr][talk] 18:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, would you happen to have the time to review US House of Representatives forms subcommittee on "the Weaponization of the Federal Government"? It's OR and has been sitting around a couple days, so I really don't want it to go stale. Thanks! --Heavy Water (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews:Writing contest 2023


Hello. We've created Wikinews:Writing contest 2023, which will start on February 1 and end on May 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 and 2013 contests. As a reviewer who has recently been inactive, it would be a great time for you to rejoin. If you are interested in signing up, please do so at Wikinews:Writing contest 2023#Entrants and create a category for the articles you submit. Heavy Water (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply



Thanks for being around to mop up. The speedy deletion queue has been out-of-control for weeks, and none had been performed in a week. FYI, SVTCobra (who is busy in real life) generally protects categories at edit=autoconfirmed and move=sysop, especially if an LTA such as that targets them. Heavy Water (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, also, could you take a look at this? A global rollbacker flagged it as a potential mismatch. Heavy Water (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Done. [24Cr][talk] 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks also for mopping up after that IP vandal. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nice to see you around


Hi Cromium/Archive 6,

I am glad to see you continue to be semi-active. Take care Ottawahitech (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

social media (cross-posted to all members of reviewer group)


Hi, Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#social_media_for_reviewers_and_authors_and_developers may be of interest to you as a reviewer, thanks and regards, Gryllida (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply



Any chance of you stepping back in at Wikinews?--Bddpaux (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any chance at all??--Bddpaux (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You have email


I just sent you an email via the "Email this user" function here at Wikinews. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

CU Request


I have posted a new request for CheckUser. Thanks, Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)Reply



I wish to re-assume this role. Can you make that happen?--Bddpaux (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Not the user but...) Cromium has not edited here in more than 7 months, and hasn't made a reasonable amounts of edits in nearly 9. Nothing anywhere in 2 months. I doubt you'll recieve a response any time soon. @Bddpaux:Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bddpaux: So much for retirement! You'll need a formal request at WN:RFP. We can fast-track it if at least a couple of regulars agree. [24Cr][talk] 07:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Request to desysop TUFKAAP


Hey there. You're still a bureaucrat, huh? I hope you review this ASAP: Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Removal/TUFKAAP. George Ho (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Blood Red Sandman's reviewer tools under review


If interested, you may wanna review this: Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Blood Red Sandman (removal). George Ho (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you


For your great work cleaning up around here!!! BigKrow (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some needed admin assistance


There was some vandalism of BigKrow's talk page last month. A history of sorts is here: User_talk:Michael.C.Wright#My_user_talk_page. The cliff notes: can you merge the current talk page with the original talk page that was moved? There are some badges on the original, as well as block discussions.

When I looked into it, the current talk page was blank so a deletion would have been easier. Now there is a thread on the current page that may need merged. Are you able to somehow merge the two and retain all the history?

Thanks in advance. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 01:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both!!! BigKrow (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Michael.C.Wright, BigKrow: - unfortunately, I don't think it woukd be possible to merge the two. I've copied the original text to the current talk page. That should at least give some semblance of normality. [24Cr][talk] 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Redirects sorryyy....


@Cromium BigKrow (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BigKrow: Haha, no problem. That is why we have a specific criterion for speedy deletions. [24Cr][talk] 22:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
K!!!! BigKrow (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply



still sleepy or nahhh??? @Cromium BigKrow (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bad habit - using devices in bed. Going to sleep now. [24Cr][talk] 23:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

It looks like you accidentally kept the expiry date Bddpaux had incorrectly set, September 25, for the full protection on this when archiving it. Heavy Water (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doh! Fixed. Thank you. [24Cr][talk] 07:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I hope you're proud of yourself


In the past 72 hours, I've been accused of being "emotional" (I wasn't) but I damn sure am now. In 16 freaking years, I haven't been emotional here. But I am now. There was a noted lack of consensus on whether or not we could reach a consensus (we could have). The whole business could've just sat, broiling at 200-degrees and maybe by the end of June, a sane mature decision could've been reached. Hell, I could've simply been the Fall guy -- 'Bddpaux acted a bit too fast, lesson learned, but let's help this new Reviewer along and just see where things go.' But no: you tantrum'd your way into ginning up what you wanted to see and in so doing, have poisoned what might've been a smart, good Reporter/Reviewer around this place. I doubt that person will drop a key stroke here in the next 6 months. You but barely poke your nose in here since December 1st and then choose this little axe to grind. One User in this process would oppose the sun coming up tomorrow!! --and you blend that in to your consensus. I was a bit optimistic. I acted a bit too quickly.
But... You do know that it is SUPER EASY to run people away from this place, don't you?! I was hoping to avoid that. I deeply (spiritually, existentially) believe in Citizen journalism -- it is good and righteous and holy. You literally, pointedly and actively SHAT UPON my actions. I have tried to unretire. I was a bit tired last year and took a bit of a sabbatical. I am, deeply and personally profoundly angry at you, as a person -- and have every single right to be. Any Steward (who would take the time to read) would see that I have every right to be. You have harmed this project and how I view it and I will be slow to forget that, whatever the cost. And to clarify: I'm not running away now; far from it. I have seen people come, stay, go, literally die -- and I'm still here. While I still intend to take a short breather -- I will be back here soon: reporting, editing, reviewing, administrating, mentoring etc. etc. etc. -- because this is a good thing, and we do good things here. Any response/rebuttal you might offer can, pre-emptively be burned in an ash pot for all I care. Bddpaux (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Bddpaux: I don't care if you are pissed off. You have a nerve to blame me for your incompetence. You are the one who could not recognise that there was no consensus. You made the mess by not closing the discussion properly. You were downright disrespectful to others in that discussion by saying "quacking and barking". We have been putting up with your rude behaviour for years. I tried to clean up your mess, which by the way I have been doing for years. You still struggle to understand that deleting a page does not automatically delete the talk page. Personally I am sick of deleting talkpages ypu left behind. You have some balls to say I have been off a few months. What were you doung for the last few months? Why are you incapable of dealing with the speedy deletions? When i logged in again a few days ago, there were over 300 speedy deletions sitting in that category. Why are you still an administrator, if you cannot handle these things? I have tried to be as polite as I can but your rudeness has reached a new peak. [24Cr][talk] 18:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Bddpaux, Cromium: I know I'm not that experienced here, but I just want to remind everyone to be nice to each other, be civil and not make person attacks. Both of you are extremely helpful good-faith editors trying to do the right thing, please remember that.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Me Da Wikipedian: - absolutely agree but you need to direct it more at someone who makes a mess and then blames the person who tried to clean up. Before today, you would never have seen so much as a rude word from me but I feel I have spent several days cleaning up messes made by certain others. At the same time, those certain others are busy painting me as lazy because I was not online for a few months and I did not attend to one request for check user. This despite me publicly announcing last year that ill health was slowing me down. I did not make a personal attack until the above comment, which is the most insulting comment I have ever had from a person who is supposedly an administrator. I was a steward for five years and was known for being diplomatic and polite. However, today my patience reached its limit. [24Cr][talk] 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Neither of you are acting particularly great. Here's my opinion. Bddpaux should understand what a consensus is, and not argue with you and claim that you are trying to, without real evidence, drive away Asheiou. Also, don't dismiss other people with stuff like the "quacking and barking" nonsense. You shouldn't have close Asheiou's request for reviewer as there wasn't exactly consensus against either, and certainly not have immediatly archived it. As someone who tags a lot of these for speedy deletion, Bddpaux should remember to delete the talk pages and give helpful deletion summaries when appropriate.
Bddpaux absolutely should not have left the obnoxious note above. The arguement above is clearly a personal attack. If you do something you realize you did too early, don't get upset if someone else calls you out. Allegations such as "you tantrum'd your way into ginning up what you wanted to see" and you have "poisoned what might've been a smart, good Reporter/Reviewer". Furthermore, Asheiou has stated that they will continue editing and just want the drama to stop, not like " I doubt that person will drop a key stroke here in the next 6 months" and "it is SUPER EASY to run people away from this place, don't you?! I was hoping to avoid that". Besides, people need to be allowed to deny a request for permission without people being upset for driving someone away. Cromium is also a volunteer here. They are under no obligation to be active at all times, and what they choose to do and not is there complete choice, so "You but barely poke your nose in here since December 1st and then choose this little axe to grind" is just nonsense. Where did you get "One User in this process would oppose the sun coming up tomorrow!!" by the way? " have harmed this project and how I view it and I will be slow to forget that, whatever the cost", no they followed proper procedure. If you want that changed this is not the place. And no one is going to "literally die" over this. Cromium is clearly acting in good faith here, has not "SHAT UPON" your actions, and they are trying to help too. Your belief that journalism is "holy" is irrelevant here. So you have no reason to be "deeply and personally profoundly angry at you as a person". And how will you have discussion if "Any response/rebuttal you might offer can, pre-emptively be burned in an ash pot for all I care". yeah, you are absolutely emotional. No steward, I hope, would agree this is allowed.
To Cromium, "I don't care if you are pissed off" is not helpful. Bddpaux is generally a very competent and useful contributor, and a mistake doesn't make them "incomptent". "We have been putting up with your rude behaviour for years" is a bit of a personal attack with only 1 instance I can see. "You have some balls to say I have been off a few months" is nonsense, that's a statement of fact. If you seriously believe they shouldn't been an administrator, here is not the correct venue. And by the way, they are definetly an admin, not a supposed administrator.
I have never seen 2 experienced and trusted users act like this before on any wiki. This is insane. I would like to ask for you to both not interact with each other for a bit (maybe a week or so) to cool off. Also, when I reminded you to be civil, Cromium, please don't continue to attack Bddpaux rather than address what you did. You are both wrong, although I will say that Bddpaux is much worse. If this continues, I will esclate.@Bddpaux, Cromium:Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Me Da Wikipedian: Your assessment of this would be pretty good, except that there is no ban on personal attacks here, and certainly not a requirement to "AGF" — we have WN:Never assume instead. Bluntness and free discussion are in fact encouraged. Heavy Water (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
So you think personal attacks are okay then? I think I can use common sense and say that even if there isn't any formal ban, it shouldn't be done. And I never said there was.
Fact:Cromium has made lots of constructive edits in good-faith
Fact:It's pretty clear Cromium is not trying to undermine the project
I am not assuming good faith, I am noting that Cromium is an editor who acts in good faith and there is no reason to think this case is different@Heavy Water:
"So you think personal attacks are okay then?": Never said that. But people's comments aren't policed so much to ensure they aren't being uncivil. And the lack of an NPA rule means, "We have been putting up with your rude behaviour for years" isn't prohibited like it might be on en.wp. If that is Cromium's view, they should state it. Your example reasoning is compatible with Never assume, as is your comment. But I added mention of it to my comment at the last moment just because I wanted to point that out in case you didn't know. I should've made that clearer. Heavy Water (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
"So you think personal attacks are okay then?" was rhetorical, obviously you don't. I guess that that We have been putting up with your rude behaviour for years" isn't prohibited, but it's not exactly great either. @Heavy Water: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I just got around to reading this full thread. I am shocked that two grown adults can argue this forcefully over a difference in opinion. As I mentioned on my own talk page and was referenced by User:Me Da Wikipedian, I don't plan to go anywhere. I still believe in this project and the good it can bring. I don't, however, believe in this level of vitriol towards another editor, another human being, who at the end of the day believes in the same goal. This goes for both of the involved editors. The level of unbridled hatred spewed in this thread is genuinely appalling — if anything here is going to "scare me off", it's going to be the way that people interact when they disagree. I'm going to take a week or so after I write this to reflect, and then I'll be back to be constructive. I hope, for your own sakes, you can at least see the slightest bit of humanity in each other, despite everything that's happened. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 02:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Me Da Wikipedian, Heavy Water, and Asheiou, thank you for the comments. I appreciate your intervention and I agree with much of what you have said. I should not have written some these things but the acidic tone pushed me too far, especially when I was trying to help him out. I fixed his requests for bureaucrat and checkuser (he still does not understsnd how to transclude a page). I have spent a lot of time deleting talk pages orphaned by his deletion of articles. I have also been checking his edit summaries abd hiding ones that contain offensive words. None of that angered me because we are both volunteers. However, I want clarify that Bddpaux SHOULD follow procedures, even if he disagrees with them. With regard to Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Asheiou, he should have understood there still was no consensus after three months. If he had read the instructions at the top of the RFP page, it says such requests must stay open for at least a week but there is no maximum. We could have left it open for longer to gather more consensus. Unfortunately, at 17:35 on May 29, he added the reviewer flag prematurely, literally a couple of minutes after adding his support vote. This was the second time that happened in this RFP. What did that do? It undermined the whole process and the confidence in administrators. I noted your comment, Me Da Wikipedian, that two administrators had not understood there was no consensus. Rather than acknowledging he had made a mistake and try to fix it, he resorted to insulting the opinions of others by saying "there is no shortage of chirping, quacking and barking around this place". That is no way to refer to others, particularly as an administrator. It does not mattet if we do not have a civility policy. We shoukd never refer to others in such disparaging terms. I offered a potential solution but that was declined. At that point, it was clear that Bddpaux was not going to correct his error. So, I did what he should have done - removed the flag and closed the discussion. IF it had not involved the erroneous addition of the flag twice, I would have left the discussion open. The result of doing that was the acrimonious comment at the start of this thread and that upset me. The best course of action now is for Asheiou to gain more experience and apply again at a later date. [24Cr][talk] 09:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cromium:, I thank you for being mature enough to realize what you did and apolgize for that. I would like to invite @Bddpaux: to do the same. I still think that you should leave @Asheiou:'s request open (unless they, frankly, want it closed at this point), since just because 2 admins don't understand what a consensus is doesn't mean you have to either. It's pretty clear that no one is signficantly in majority, either through votes, experience, or anything else. I would like to ask for you to leave it open for a bit long. It's not Asheiou's fault that people don't understand consensus. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me Da Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 10:09, 2 June 2024
@Me Da Wikipedian: the main reason for closing it was the two mistaken flags. I feel it is better to draw a line and move on to a future RFP. However, if User:Asheiou wishes to reopen it, I will be happy to oblige. [24Cr][talk] 13:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cromium:, it seems wrong to punish @Asheiou: for the fact that Bddpaux and Bawolff as to what consensus is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me Da Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 20:08, 2 June 2024
I read all this fighting words, we need to move forward and be adults, 2 cents worthhh... BigKrow (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Me Da Wikipedian:I understand the concern and I am sorry they have been at the blunt end of the process. However, I won't re-open it unless User:Asheiou confirms they want it to. As I understand it, they were going to take a short break, which is understandable (although they seem to be editing in the background). [24Cr][talk] 21:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Cromium: I've opted against taking a break, I enjoy editing here and things have settled down enough. About the reviewer request, I'd like to wait for another user to nominate me, whenever they think I have enough experience. I would still like to be a reviewer here, but this whole mess about my request hasn't put me in a position where I'd like to maintain my self-nomination. I stand by wanting the existing reviewers to write a little about their review process, to more effectively teach people how to review. That whole thing might link into User:Michael.C.Wright's {{pre-review}}, if we're going to keep testing that as a concept, which I'd support. I think the current process for becoming a reviewer is quite inaccessible because there aren't any resources available for would-be-reviewers to learn how reviewing works. Maybe pre-review could evolve into a tool for training new potential reviewers. We'll see. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 21:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

So, some words need to be said


Time, distance, many deep breaths and some mature reflection often have a great deal of merit. The important words should be said first: I am deeply sorry for my adolescent (that's putting mildly) post I made above last week -- profoundly sorry. I violated one of my personal inviolable rules:Never type when you're angry. If you'd come at me with less than a machete, such a post was FAR outside the bounds of reasonable discourse and basic decorum.
Often, in these situations, a person apologizes and then says a bunch of words to kind of unravel their apology: I won't do that here. However, to shed some light on where my head was -- Since about October 1st (if not much earlier) the vandalism here was at plague-like levels -- dealing with it was like a battle scene from Lord of the Rings. I didn't like and will never like people treating this place like their own weird dry mark board. I was exhausted and horribly exasperated. I spent 97% of my time running around with a broom and a mop and could manage little else. Then, 1 or 2 people showed a wee bit of promise as Reporters/Reviewers. I moved much too quickly on some things; when that was over-turned, I then had my own little micro Will Smith episode (in the center of the arena, I might add).
A couple of important things:
*My current RfP's? They are withdrawn, forthwith. Zap them. Close them, per my request. It will be many moons before I express any interest in being a 'Crat or a CU anywhere in the WMF universe.
*For the next 52 weeks, RfP (and anything in the realm of PeP actions) will be a no fly zone for me. No comments, no votes, no actions... nothing. I think that would be best.
*For the rest of this year, my Admin. actions will pretty much be janitorial in nature (obvious speedy deletes, putting up 'aband' temps) and the like. Any other concrete Admin. stuff -- I am just staying away from that. I think that would be best. I'm going to give wide berth to stuff about policy (not saying I won't comment) -- but it'll be a rare event.
*For several weeks, I'm just going to not be around much. I am utterly swamped at work and have all manner of stuff with my house, community involvement etc. going on right now, and there are only 24 hours in a day.
This place is BOTH a news site AND a wiki. Eons ago, some smart people would talk about how many persons within the WMF circle really don't/won't/refuse to comprehend the weird and complex balance that entails. I have always veered toward the "News Project"-piece being most important, but things just don't operate like that. Since the impetus of this kerfuffle, this place has lit up like a Christmas tree! I can only hope the interest/energy/activity (or, the positive aspects, I mean) continue for months and years to come. People I've never heard of in my entire life have come 'round. Again: loads of people bust in here, guns ablazing, longing for a Pulizter -- and then they are never heard from again. Maybe a good change is in the wind. We are all just volunteers. Bddpaux (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apology accepted. I shouldn't have said some of those things. Let us draw a line on the ground and move on. [24Cr][talk] 18:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, both BigKrow (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would like to thank everyone for (finally) acting like adults here. @Bddpaux:, there are a few RFP's you said you would take action on before a certain date (many of which have already passed). What should be done? Will you take action on those, or should someone say that you no longer will? Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am steering clear of RfP's (and PeP actions) for the next 52 weeks. Another Admin. can action those, where applicable.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both for coming to a mature resolution. I hope this will at least shake some activity into our community for more than 3 seconds. It's shown us what matters about Wikinews, at least. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 21:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. BigKrow (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
It has, indeed.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the snappy review


Been a while since I've had an article reviewed the same day I wrote it. We actually got a piece of news out while it's still news, and about at the same time as some of the more minor UK papers and such. Glad to see, cheers! A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 21:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well done! --BigKrow (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ohio story


Thank you for the review and publication! Appreciate it. @Cromium BigKrow (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nice Job!


For the first time in...28 months, wow... our front page has nothing older than 1 day on it. For the first time in 28 months, we look like an active and credible news source. For the first time I'm actually a bit worried at how fast things are changing on the main page. I wanted to thank you for your awesome and very quick reviews that have allowed this. Great job and hope we can keep this up. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem. This is how it should be. With the changing of the main page, I am following the principle of putting the last five reviewed articles with newest at lead 1. However, we can change this if there is an article we think should stay up. Feel free to make any suggestions on the main page talk. [24Cr][talk] 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, made a proposal the talk page of the Main Page.Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Viktor Pinchuk


You might want to know. Bddpaux and I have both said we aren't comfortable with passing any more of these; at least, so long as Pinchuk continues his work here in a largely similar fashion. I don't know if you're fully aware of the circumstances — for over a year and a half now, Pinchuk has about once a month written an article at ru.wn, which usually focuses on some presentation he did of some book or photo album of his derived from some travels of his, and translates it to submit it here and at multiple other language editions. Bddpaux's reasoning largely meshes with mine. I only used to allow Pinchuk to do this, reluctantly, because reviewers much more experienced than me had, repeatedly. Heavy Water (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Heavy Water: I have been aware of these articles and am not sure what the best approach is. I don't want to discourage him from contributing but I agree there does seem to be a form of COI involved. If it was just reported by someone else, it would be far less problematic. Clearly there have been public events (this last one at a state-run museum), and there have been plenty of people attending. We will need to communicate this to him as politely as possible (although I suspect there has been a language barrier in the past). [24Cr][talk] 12:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bing News


Hi, @Cromium, I have always used Bing News for searches but should I use something different like Google News? I just don't like to go to big news contributions i have a bad tendency if OCD so please bere with me, looking forward to hearing from you, thanks! BigKrow (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BigKrow: Well, you can use any search engine you wish. However, please don't list news aggregator sites such as Yahoo News, if the actual source article is available. For example, we had one from Yahoo News that was actually from Euronews. So I've swapped the url so it shows Euronews instead. I hope that makes sense. (Oh, and you don't need to ping me on my talkpage - the system automatically alerts me if someone else leaves a message here.) [24Cr][talk] 00:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Sorry bad habit of me pinging users..... and thanks for the information. BigKrow (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lead Article 1


Please sight my revert of your mistake. Thank you. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Revision deleting the IP address at Acagastya's talk page


I think it should not be done, for the sole reason that he knows that and consciously decides to use his IP address instead of logging in. I don't think that's normally covered under revision-deletion on most wikis, though I could be mistaken here. Leaderboard (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Leaderboard: Hiding an exposed IP address has been one of the reasons for revision deletion on this wiki since at least 2010 I know that Acagastya takes safety very seriously, so I'd prefer to be cautious and let him undelete it if he wishes. [24Cr][talk] 16:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Cromium/Archive 6".