Request that you add an option

This section has been migrated.

Hey I think the category you added to Special report on Japanese tsunami emergency in Pichilemu, Chile, "2010 Chile Earthquake" is the wrong event. That was a different earthquake. --Ashershow1talk 17:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

note to self

Dendodge 9 Bleep 0 Jersey 8 — μ 11:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Two students shot at Delaware State University

This wouldn't be an archival copyedit, in my judgment, but a correction notice. I also think it needs corroboration. The only surviving source addressing it says officials said Newark, NJ, so if (as seems common sense) it's DE, the correction notice should make it clear that our article is still an accurate snapshot of what was known at the time. --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think you're right. I'm not sure how to proceed, however. By the way, add "redesign {{correction}} to be not so scary looking" to the to-do listμ 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
How's User:Dendodge/Correction as a start on your second point? I did it a while ago, it seemed appropriate to mention it now. DENDODGE 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Looks too much like {{delete}}. — μ 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Presumably, we want two mutually independent sources that say Newark, DE. I've found one easily, a source for the en.wp article — Washington Post. I'll look for a second.
Each {{correction}} notice should leap out at the reader on arrival, because its purpose is to prevent xem from being misled when reading the article. Eyes may slide right over an {{ambox}} no matter what it says. --Pi zero (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request to review

Could you please review my latest article? It is called 'Worst song of all time' becomes YouTube sensation. Please try to review this as soon as you can as its about to stale. I would really appreciate your co-operation with this. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not in the best position to sit down and thoroughly review an article, sorry. — μ 11:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Firefox 4

FWIW, I've just upgraded to Firefox 4.0 —which is, as advertised, wonderfully fast— and the whighlighter gadget no longer does anything. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No idea why, and I can't check in order to fix. — μ 03:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
As of this morning, I've got green underlines again. No idea why. --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Recent 'drama'

I hope my recent contributions in an effort to defuse an unacceptable situation meet with your approval.

You may note the "post-mortem" item on a sub-page of Geoff's talk; your comments on that, subsectioned, would be most welcome.

Geoff starting on, what I felt was an attempt to lay groundwork for defence of later outbusts, isn't. A followup in the same form based on the actual version reviewed may reinforce that more-than-serious quality concerns existed; plus any remarks on xe's response to what I characterised as a "terse rejection"(see xyr talk).

Obviously I'd want my advice on WN:AAA considered, possibly given clear indication it meets with community consensus, and a strict interpretation and application of action suggested therein.

Would you concur? --Brian McNeil / talk 07:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

British police charge taxi driver with murder

Could you please review British police charge taxi driver with murder? I would appreciate your co-operation with this. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply


Can you create a copy of this evil template that works on the embargoed wiki? --Brian McNeil / talk 12:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{#ifexist: {{{2|{{{1|Main Page}}}}}} | [[{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}|{{{1}}}]] | [[wikipedia:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} iirc — μ 13:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply


Take it to DR; this is a university research image which is no longer publicly available. There is every reason to believe this may be used in future, and the image is newsworthy in itself. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply


As you probably saw on scoop, I've landed the requisite interview.

Can you go on the embargoed wiki and see what you think would be the most appropriate questions? I feel eight or less is reasonable in this case. There's a lot of information to go around that section. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • I have my interview responses, and have begun filling out additional detail on this. I want to be up in terms of people having followed the scoop correspondence; can you check in on the eporters' wiki and offer your opinion? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

File:India Against Corruption.png

Will this do? If not, could you point the way to instructions on how to write up a fair use rationale for wikinews? Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yep, progress

{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Pages with defaulting non-local links}} / {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
  = Expression error: Unexpected < operator..Expression error: Unexpected < operator.% --Pi zero (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

  I've just removed {{w}} from {{dateline}} again, because it stops me from removing the {{w}} call for things like {{dateline}}. Obviously this isn't ideal — any ideas? [also, as you've probably just noticed, {{w nav}}] — μ 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Null edits

On the off chance you happened never to have crossed paths with this nuance:  Null edits needn't alter the page; just click the edit tab, click the "Save page" button, and it purges the page without adding to its revision history. (I do this to the main page to call up newly published articles.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hm. I was aware of that, but it still showed [[w:... as opposed to {{w|... when I tried that, so I thought I was doing it wrong — I'm not entirely sure what happened, as those edits didn't do anything either. Thanks for the tip, — μ 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
A tip in return: clicking the   icon that's on the Main Page will purge it as well. :-) — μ 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
My eyes have been sliding over that icon on the main page without seeing it. (How to hide a hippopotamus.) Thanks! --Pi zero (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for your suggestion, but I edit completely online. I just make many edits to complete an article. Hope that is ok as I don't know how to edit without knowing how it looks online (with the formatting and all). Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing wrong with it at all! I simply assumed that the double-spacing was from Microsoft Word or somesuch doing strange things. Good luck with the rest of the article. — μ 23:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
No. I don't even have Microsoft Word. Mattisse (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply


Talkback! here. Ebe123 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

question about "comments" page

Hi, I am wondering why Comments:Apple's data is dirtiest, says Greenpeace doesn't have a link Back to article like Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred does, for example? (I don't know how to fix that.) Regards, Mattisse (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because Tadpole created the comments page before the article was published, and the script isn't clever enough to add the proper comments header. アンパロ Io ti odio! 15:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
^ that. — μchip08 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Is there no way to fix it? I find Back to article very helpful. Mattisse (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
LQT can't be added without deleting or blanking the page; which is undesirable as there are post-publication comments added to it. The header might be able to be added, but I don't know the template location (or if it would be relevant) — μchip08 15:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
For better or worse, I left a note on Tadpole's talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What links were you thinking of? --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

largest oil spill Deepwater Horizon, and explosion all link to separate Wikipedia articles, but link to the same Wikinews category, which I doubt is what is intended. — μchip08 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Mm. I've been noticing that case lately, as it comes up in many of the Deepwater Horizon articles. Having each of those links go to our category is reasonable, yet having all of them go to it doesn't quite work. Granted, forcing the links and thereby putting them in Category:Pages with forced foreign links could be an interim solution... but in this case, I'm not happy deferring resolution to the indefinite future until I have some idea what form the eventual resolution can take.
The reason I want to figure this out now (even though implementing it can still be deferred) is the nature of my long-term vision. Categorization, even though itself a vast long-term task, is just one step in solving the larger problem of localizing the wikilinks in our articles. I've launched into the categorization partly because it's a necessary step and one already identifiable, but also because I hope to gain insight, through massive breadth of experience from categorizing things, into other steps.
We're very close to identifying another step, here. I can almost touch it. It's tantalizing.
Here's another case I've had my eye on for some months. Eventually we'll have a category for "Space Shuttle", with a subcategory for each individual vehicle. But the articles commonly have links to Wikipedia articles on individual missions (STS-XXX). Most missions are lucky to have one article about xem here, let alone three or more, so there's no chance xe'll ever have categories here. So, what can we provide as an interim link, effectively catching the reader on the way out and providing some useful information plus an opportunity to continue browsing Wikinews? --Pi zero (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
My current thinking is the redundant wikilinks are encyclopedic in nature, and, rather than wikilinks from the text, they should be either sister links provided on the article, or perhaps sister links from the category. I'm hoping to upgrade our treatment of wikilinks in articles, and especially want to upgrade our treatment of wikilinks by {{topic cat}} (which currently supports at most one link to each sister, and doesn't name it, which works sometimes but not always). --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry 'bout that!

Looks like I tried to block him at the same time as you! Regards, wackywace 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply


I did a double-take on this. There appear to be two <div>'s, the second of which has a matching </div> but the first seems to match the </div> you removed. Am I missing something? --Pi zero (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Redirect problem

Thanks for fixing. Mattisse (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome.  μchip08 23:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

could you fix this? - it seems orphaned

Baffling seems to be orphaned after you edited it. Or am I not understanding something? Regards, Mattisse (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's right where you left it.  μchip08 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry! I wasn't understanding how it was showing up on "Recent changes". My apologies. (I don't understand why you changed it thought, as it is my understanding that is how to formate wikipedia articles. No?) Mattisse (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. However, (if I understand Pi zero correctly, {{w}} categorises pages into links that should/could be "fixed" in future: adding it to non-articlespace clogs the categories up more than is required. (Mind you, one could just use {{w|nocat=true}}, which I'd completely forgotten about when I edited your comment.) — μchip08 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure. It seems like when Pi zero goes through the articles I have written, he changes every link to w| on the "just in case" theory. As for {{w|nocat=true}}, could you explain what that does? 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
All articles could/should/would be {{w}}'d. Many meta-pages, however, don't need to be (as they don't require 'fixing'). As for nocat, it tells the template not to categorise itself the way it normally does. — μchip08 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply


  • Where did you learn how to do the markup for this? I'm studying such things intently, the past week, as I gather techniques for a "story form".
  • So, why did you delete your user page, anyway? (Just wondering.)
  • Wondering, do templates xe/xyr/xem materially benefit the project? I'm thinking both of Amgine's phrasing re userboxes in Brian New Zealand v. Amgine and, further afield, of Warren Burger's phrasing re obscenity in Roth v. United States.
  • Imho we actually managed to end up with a good new look for the correction template. Score one for community discussion. :-)

--Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Mainly by looking at the URIs created by mw:Extension:Inputbox.
  • Because I kept getting distracted on making it better.,
  • Doubt it. I created them because I could, and because a few users seem to find xe as a word somewhat annoying. Feel free to delete under user request if you want to.
  •  . By the way, gives you the code for cross-browser curvy corners (as -moz-border-radius only works on Mozilla browsers). I'm still undecided whether to tweak on a per-skin basis, as this, for example, looks odd. — μchip08 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
One can set one's gender in Special:Preferences (e.g. Dendodge is a he). — μchip08 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
I meant something to affect how xe/xyr was displayed in text. Ofc, that raises the problem that not all users are a common gender, but w/ever. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's probably a way to change all instances of xe to they if one really wanted. μchip08 17:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

bin Laden

Sorry about accidentally removing your additions; I saw this vandalism and reverted it but it seems your additions somehow got caught in my diff. wackywace 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

:-) — μchip08 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Blocks of dynaic IPs

I'm not going to touch your adjustment of Diego's block. However, I will point out that most dynamic IPs have minimum lease life of 72 hours nowadays. Additionally, many ISPs using a DHCP pool for broadband will give week+ leases; or, due to people leaving their ADSL/cable modems on 24/7, the lease will instantly be renewed on the old address.

/me is working inside an ISP,.... And, short lease-life is a thing from dialup. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

your suggestion to me

You suggested to me that I filed a Dispute resolution because of the check user that was filed against me.[1]

However, I have looked at the Wikinews:Dispute resolution page that you gave as a reference, and I can't figure out how to file one. Could you please explain how to do it? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

What to do?

From the Wikinews:Dispute resolution directions:

  • Step three: Ask the community for help

If things seem to be getting unwieldy, either party may include a template on their userpage to ask the community for some assistance. Often times, the input of third parties can greatly reduce the bitter quips and accusations that slip out when trying to resolve an issue yourself. The community is often times willing to see both sides and can help you and your fellow Wikinewsie find some common ground. It's still experimental, but give it a try.

How do I do this. How do I solicit input of third parties? I have no idea what is going on. I know a lot is "off wiki" which I am not a part of. How do I inform others to give their viewpoint? I cannot participate in the project until this is resolved. Mattisse (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

You could, for example, post a single edit on the Water cooler (limited, nonpartisan), as opposed to editing lots of users' talk pages with the exact same edit (mass, partisan). A user directly involved in the situation might want a message, but you posted messages to many other users' talk pages that are/were not directly involved in the situation. — μchip08 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I posed on the Water cooler - Assistance. Is that the right place? I can't tell which of those options are appropriate. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
P.S. It would help if the directions at Wikinews:Dispute resolution were clearer. A person in my position finds it very hard to understand what to do. I had to ask questions to even figure out how to file a Dispute resolution, as there are no instructions. Is there a way I could get help in navigating this business, as it is all very confusing and I feel helpless. I am basically bidding goodbye to those who have been kind to me, and there are many. Mattisse (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you

Thank you for this, diff, I agree with you that this type of behavior is disruptive and wholly inappropriate on this project. I hope you are well. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. Thank you, Microchip08. Gryllida 07:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Meddling with blocks you don't understand

Psychonaut (talk · contribs), on Wikinews, is not the same as on Wikipedia.

Congratulations on unblocking a Willy on Wheels sock because you didn't check the contribution history, and failed to notice the block predated SUL.

Have you done any other ill-advised unblocks like this recently? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

sulutil:Psychonaut says it is now merged; and the user, as confirmed on their Wikipedia talk page, has control of the account. — μchip08 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP

At the moment, you have both a (weak) support vote and an oppose vote standing. Did you intend to strike the earlier oppose vote when you added the later weak-support one? --Pi zero (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see. (Actually, TUFKAAP simply withdrew the checkuser half of it, but that's as may be.) I attempted to clarify the status of the earlier vote; obviously, if the way I went about it doesn't meet with your approval, adjust to taste. --Pi zero (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply


39 articles created, and you've never even received one of these....?! That seems a pity! --Bddpaux (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 11th published news article.


Priv restored, per WN:FR/RFP. --Pi zero (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Note on abandonment

WN:PROD says to wait till an article hasn't been worked on for four days before marking it abandoned. --Pi zero (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ah, fair enough. I thought it was two. Thanks for the heads up, — μchip08 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it's confusing. The template docs only mention two days, which is how long to wait after applying the template before deletion (or userspacing). So I just added a note. --Pi zero (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Request for reviewing and other assistance

Hi. Next week is the start of the IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics . This is part of an effort outlined at Wikinews:IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

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

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. Unlike the previous version, points are available for people who conduct reviews. (With a University of Wollongong class currently contributing articles, extra assistance is appreciated at this time.) It presents a great incentive for you to renew your reviewing chops, contribute some original reporting not being done by the main stream media, and write some synthesis articles on topics that could use more attention. People should be around to review to prevent a backlog if you just want to write, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Microchip08/Archive/4".